Query Features Profiles behavior

[dlemire60]

In issue 20 against the MQTT Transfer Spec @sparrell requested "an example of a profile query to all slpf would help in understanding."

I think this raises some interesting questions, which we discussed at the 2 March IC-SC and agreed should be presented here:

• if query features profiles is directed at Consumer devices with a specific AP (either by pub/sub topic selection or using the actuator field in the request), what is the desired response (e.g., "the specified profile" or "all profiles supported by that consumer")?
• And what is the response if the Consumer does not implement the specified AP?

Example 1 (pub/sub): producer sends a query features profiles request to oc2/cmd/ap/slpf, with no actuator field in the request. I think the correct response is that any consumer that implements the SLPF AP should respond with all APs that consumer implements. But it's worth considering that at least for a moment. And in discussion at the 2 March IC-SC, Duncan and I agreed that not using the actuator field in the request message is a poor approach because it's transfer-solution specific.

Example 2 (pub/sub): producer sends a query features profiles request to oc2/cmd/all, with slpf specified in the actuator field in the request. This is a better message form, as the specification of an AP is now general, rather than transfer-specific. If using oc2/cmd/all then all Consumers will receive the request. Is the correct response that any consumer that implements the SLPF AP should respond with all APs that consumer implements, or just respond with slpf so that the producer can identify consumers that implement slpf? Does the answer change if the request were sent to the AP-specific channel (i.e., oc2/cmd/ap/slpf) as in Example 1?

Example 3 (point-to-point): producer sends a query features profiles request over, e.g., HTTP(S) to a consumer with slpf specified in the actuator field in the request. Is the correct response for that consumer if it implements the SLPF AP to respond with all APs that consumer implements, or just respond with slpf so that the producer can confirm the consumer implements SLPF? And if the consumer in this point-to-point case doesn't implement SLPF, is the response some kind of error, or just the list of profiles it does support?

[davaya]

See oasis-tcs/openc2-oc2ls#365

[dlemire60]

After reviewing this issue again, and the linked LS issue 365, I believe this is a Language issue rather than an architecture issue and should be resolved as part of updating the LS. I'd suggest closing this issue, perhaps after copying the initial statement of the issue above into the LS issue 365 discussion.