Unsigned scheme numbers #84
Conversation
code/schemes-numbers.rb
Outdated
| | -8 | coaps+tcp | \[RFC-XXXX] | | ||
| | -9 | coap+ws | \[RFC-XXXX] | | ||
| | -10 | coaps+ws | \[RFC-XXXX] | | ||
| | CRI scheme number | URI scheme | Reference | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For consistency with the updated names of the registry columns later on, the names of the columns here should be "CRI scheme number value" and "URI scheme name".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I removed the "value" from the IANA registry entry definition -- this seems redundant to me.
| | -9 | coap+ws | | ||
| | -10 | coaps+ws | | ||
| {: #scheme-map title="Mapping CRI scheme ids and URI scheme names"} | ||
| | CRI scheme number | URI scheme name | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For consistency with the updated names of the registry columns later on, the name of the first column here should be "CRI scheme number value".
| 2. Translate the scheme-id into a URI scheme name as per | ||
| {{scheme-id}} and | ||
| {{scheme-map}}; if a scheme-id that corresponds to a scheme | ||
| number not in this list is being used, | ||
| fail this algorithm. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This covers the case where the scheme section is a scheme-id. Shouldn't this step cover also the case where the scheme section is a scheme-name instead? That would also need to check whether that scheme-name is among those listed in the table above, and, if not, to fail the algorithm.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Didn't we want to make the use of the scheme-id mandatory if that exists?
For all entries in the table, scheme-name is not allowed then; so it seems scheme-name is never allowed in this procedure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't remember considering this detail before but it makes sense, as now also in the latest text.
| unsigned integer that represents the CRI scheme-number (which relates to | ||
| a CRI scheme-id as defined in {{scheme-id}}). | ||
| For instance, the scheme name "coap" has the scheme-number 0 and is | ||
| represented as an unsigned integer by a zero-length CoAP Option value. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe add a reference to Section 3.2 of RFC 7252?
This PR moves the scheme number registry to unsigned integers and makes it easier to describe Proxy-Scheme-Number.
Support for additional CoAP Options has not yet been added.