-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 52
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
OMA LwM2M defines more mandatory functionality than in CoAP #28
Comments
Any concrete examples ? I've no idea |
"Observe" is marked as option in CoAP (RFC7252, 2.2. page 14) and as MUST in LwM2M (TS 20150513, 5.5, page 31). |
Regarding "Observe" YES ! LWM2M considers it's an essential and basic functionality to support to address M2M segment. |
Ok no other comments for 6 months => to be closed |
IMHO: For device management LWM2M is totally usable without observe (real world experience here). |
no new remark => to be closed |
This seems to be a new and real remark ...
I didn't know that being compatible with OneM2M was mandatory for LWM2M ...
|
Onem2m already very focused on interworking with LWm2m.But as you told On Apr 15, 2016 2:28 PM, "sbernard31" notifications@github.com wrote: This seems to be a new and real remark ... IMHO: For device management LWM2M is totally usable without observe (real I didn't know that being compatible with OneM2M was mandatory for LWM2M ... It is even so true that without that feature, LWM2M will be even not able — |
in oneM2M, when we speak about LWM2M interworking, it has nothing to do with Device Management . |
Issue closed per Thierry's comment above 11-Oct-2016 |
The attendees to the Dusseldorf LwM2M TestFest indicated that in general OMA LwM2M specifications define more mandatory functionality than in CoAP.
Friedhelm Rodermund from Vodafone, took an action item on to further investigate this perception.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: