Subject: [Anima] M_END, O_ACCEPT

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:12:42 -0400

Brian, is there some reason why the M_END could not be:

   accept-option = [O_ACCEPT, ?stuff]

or is it your intention that if the one end has additional information to add
(such as port number where the requested service has been started), then it
should use an M_NEGOTIATE and extend the objective to include the additional
information, and then perhaps the M_END would occur from the initiator
accepting the result?

If so, I'd very much like an example of that in the document, as this wasn't
clear to me until just now. (If in fact, I even got that)

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 16:14:47 +1300

> information, and then perhaps the M_END would occur from the initiator

Yes, my mental model is that you would negotiate until everything was settled,
so there would be nothing left to say in ?stuff. Because there are no constraints
on the format of the value of an objective (except that it can be CBORized),
I don't see why this would be restrictive - negotiation allows values to be
passed in both directions anyway.

Really [M_END, session-id, [O_ACCEPT]] is just the final handshake.

> clear to me until just now. (If in fact, I even got that)

Ack.

    Brian