[OASIS Issue Tracker] (MQTT-605) Should packets be identified as multicast or unicast exclusively?

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/MQTT-605?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=83978#comment-83978 ] 

Simon Johnson commented on MQTT-605:
------------------------------------

I believe the concept of broadcast / multicast is valid to mention in the context of discovery as it is a well understood paradigm. I do not think we should be too prescriptive in how and which packets are sent using specific networking functions, since we cannot foresee all use-cases.

Â

I think it's safe to say that ADVERTISE and SEARCH are broadcast / multicast by their nature. I wouldn't go any further than this.

> Should packets be identified as multicast or unicast exclusively?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MQTT-605
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/MQTT-605
>             Project: OASIS Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) TC
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: MQTT-SN
>    Affects Versions: v2.0
>            Reporter: Ian Craggs
>            Assignee: Ian Craggs
>            Priority: Major
>
> In the 1.2 specification, the ADVERTISE, SEARCHGW and GWINFO are identified as being "broadcasted" to potentially multiple receivers, whereas the other packets are not. The question here is whether we should continue to identify these packets (and PUBLISH QoS -1,- or out of band) as broadcast (or multicast) only in normative text, or just call this out as implementation advice non-normatively.
> Andy Banks is concerned that if it is the latter, then interoperability could be affected.
> Ian Craggs thinks that which address to send packets on is an implementation decision, like the TCP/IP address and port of the MQTT broker in MQTT.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.3#803004)