0

Let's say an MN-CSE announces an areaNwkInfo to an IN-CSE. The areaNwkInfoAnnc resource in the IN-CSE has a listOfDevices attribute that contains a list of MN-CSE-relative resourceIDs.

Is that correct? If so, what use are those resourceIDs in the IN-CSE? How, for example would one map those resourceIDs to announced areaNwkDeviceInfoAnncs ?

Spongman
  • 9,665
  • 8
  • 39
  • 58

1 Answers1

2

No, that's not correct. The MN-CSE (as originator of the announced resource request) should set any resource identifier reference to the correct format (as per TS-0001 clause 7.2, latest paragraphs). In your case, SP-relative.

In addition, if I am not wrong, areaNwkInfo resource cannot be announced as per TS-0001 Annex D.5, table D.5-2.

Miguel A. Reina
  • 71
  • 1
  • 1
    [areaNwkInfo] is a specialisation of , which can be announced. See also TS-0001, Table 9.6.18-1: Child resources of resource – Andreas Kraft Jun 15 '21 at 19:36
  • "TS-0001 clause 7.2, latest paragraphs", can you please clarify which paragraph you mean? – Spongman Jun 16 '21 at 06:49
  • It seems that some attributes are missing for areaNwkInfo in table D.5-2. Paragraph I was referring to is the following (in particular the first sentence): "The format (i.e. CSE-relative, SP-relative or absolute) of resource identifier (e.g. the To parameter, accessControlPolicyIDs attribute) shall be correctly set by the Originator in an initial request, while the format of AE-ID or CSE-ID in the From parameter shall be set in a shortest format by the Originator in the initial request and it shall be converted in another format by the Registrar CSE or IN-CSE as the following." – Miguel A. Reina Jun 16 '21 at 20:51
  • Ok, that sentence could really use some copy-editing. It's not clear what "correctly set" means, or what "a shortest format" means. Does this imply that even though Table 9.6.1.3.1-1 states that `resourceID` is 'Unstructured-CSE-relative-Resource-ID', when a `resourceID` is referenced in another attribute (eg. `listOfDevices`) and sent to another CSE, then the format should be converted to `SP-relative` ? If that's the case you guys really need to call that out, because it's really not clear from the text. – Spongman Jun 21 '21 at 17:03
  • .. and does this imply that all such attributes should be translated in both upsteam & downstream requests between CSE-relative & SP-relative formats? If so, this is IMO a huge requirement that's way too important to be hidden behind such a vague specification here. – Spongman Jun 21 '21 at 18:04
  • is there a list of these magically translated attributes anywhere? i note that the type of `listOfDevies` is `m2m:listOfURIs`. it would be helpful (for codegen) if there were `m2m:resourceID` and `m2m:listOfResourceIDs` types in the xsd that indicated where these translations were necessary. – Spongman Jun 21 '21 at 18:21
  • Well, the paragraph I copied should be read together with the rest of the clause. "Correctly set" means that it depends in the context (within a CSE, another CSE, etc..) the identidiers are going to be used. "Shortest" means Unstructure CSE-Relative, any other format will be longer. The table 9.6.1.3.1-1 is talking about the resourceID attribute which is specific for every resource. When announcing a resource, the announced resource will get its own resource identifier, that's why that specific attribute uses always Unstructured CSE-Relative. – Miguel A. Reina Jun 23 '21 at 05:19
  • Other attributes (like listOfDevices) should use the appropriate format to reference to other resources depending on the context. I think you have had a good idea to mark attributes that need to be format translated when need to be used in a different context (different CSE or Service Provider). I will open a discussion for that. – Miguel A. Reina Jun 23 '21 at 05:19