Subject: [core] CBOR in Group Comm?

From: Zach Shelby <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:29:59 +0200

Looking at our current multicast address configuration REST interface in draft-ietf-core-groupcomm-11, would implementor feel more comfortable with using CBOR instead of JSON for this interface? And now the comment that came up this morning in Apps Area WG regarding tags for IP addresses becomes more relevant :-) 

   Req: GET /gp
   Res: 2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/coap-group+json)
   [ { "n": "Room-A-Lights.floor1.west.bldg6.example.com",
       "ip": "ff15::4200:f7fe:ed37:14ca" }
   ] 

Obviously the name won't get any smaller, but if the IP address would already be in a binary form that would save space and avoid the need for conversion in the node. 

But we should only do this a) if it is clear CBOR is going forward smoothly, and b) there is some real benefit from doing so. Thoughts?

Zach

-- 
Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
http://www.sensinode.com @SensinodeIoT
Mobile: +358 40 7796297
Twitter: @zach_shelby
LinkedIn: http://fi.linkedin.com/in/zachshelby
6LoWPAN Book: http://6lowpan.net