Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Notifications (2.04 vs 2.05) #3

Closed
jpradocueva opened this issue Jan 29, 2015 · 2 comments
Closed

Notifications (2.04 vs 2.05) #3

jpradocueva opened this issue Jan 29, 2015 · 2 comments
Labels
Discrepancies IETF TS

Comments

@jpradocueva
Copy link
Member

TS LwM2M section 8.2.5.
CoAP recommends to send 2.05 Content as response code for Notifications but OMA defines 2.04 Changed instead.
@jvermillard
Copy link

to be noted 2.04 (changed) is mean to be used when no content is return, like a write message. So 2.04 observe notification won't be cached by CoAP or HTTP caches

jvermillard added a commit to eclipse-leshan/leshan that referenced this issue Feb 12, 2015
@jvermillard
accept the two way of receiving observations
5859e21 
see OpenMobileAlliance/OMA_LwM2M_for_Developers#3
jvermillard referenced this issue in bosch-io/wakaama Feb 25, 2015
Bugfix: accepting 2.05/CONTENT for notifications broke the detection of
e458fe2 
the establishing observe transaction. Therefore the observe is not
longer registered in the transaction callback. Fix: first call always
transaction_handle_response and handle_observe_notify only, if the
message doesn't match a transaction.
Signed-off-by: Achim Kraus <achim.kraus@bosch-si.com>
@ThGarnier
Copy link

OMA LwM2M 1.0 now (CR07 12/02/2015) send 2.05 Content as response code for Notifications

@kFYatek kFYatek mentioned this issue Feb 28, 2017
Closed
This was referenced Mar 24, 2021
Closed
Closed
@hannestschofenig hannestschofenig mentioned this issue Oct 5, 2022
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Discrepancies IETF TS
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@jvermillard @jpradocueva @ThGarnier