I'm inclined to classify this as an optimization. So three reasons not to add the parameter:
1. laziness
2. it's probably not too much extra load to create a resource for most types of resources, especially if you optimize for the case where the resource isn't accessed
3. DHCP won't have any hinting
It strikes me that the PUT/DELETE nature of client management of these resources creates a bit of a problem with this multiple-URI approach. If the user has two different clients from which policy updates may come, updates PUT from one must be synchronized to the other URI by some back-end process, or your risk silly states where the user has updated policy using one URI, but the policy accessed from a different client using a different scheme gets old data because the URIs are distinct and no PUT occurred to that URI.
Did I miss a section where this was described?
regards,
Ted Hardie
If another editor manages to overcome #1, then I'm OK with having the hint.
--Martin
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
