If it's the first time, you let the TCP/IP stack pick any ephemeral port.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ???(Uze Choi) [mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 6:21 PM
> To: 'Keane, Erich' <erich.keane at intel.com>;
> Jacob_Gladish at cable.comcast.com; 'Macieira, Thiago'
> <thiago.macieira at intel.com>; Dave Thaler <dthaler at microsoft.com>;
> ashok.channa at samsung.com; cftg at openconnectivity.org
> Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> Subject: RE: [cftg] Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF
> IANA
> Port Number Assignment
>
> The Last used one, Ok.
> Then, for the first time, which port and how it will be decided?
> BR, Uze Choi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org] On
> Behalf Of Keane, Erich
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 12:37 AM
> To: Jacob_Gladish at cable.comcast.com; Macieira, Thiago;
> uzchoi at samsung.com; dthaler at microsoft.com;
> ashok.channa at samsung.com; cftg at openconnectivity.org
> Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> Subject: Re: [cftg] Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF
> IANA
> Port Number Assignment
>
> I don't really have an idea for an implicit hint, I'm not sure there is
> anything that properly matches. I like John Light's suggestions to use
> the last used one if possible, but that does require storage of some
> sort.
>
> Otherwise we probably just need to pick one.
>
> On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 14:22 +0900, ???(Uze Choi) wrote:
> > For discovery multicast we are using 5683 registerd IANA coap port.
> > For unicast we are using randomly generated port.
> >
> > Implicitly hint should be based on some idea or consensus. What do
> > you propose? Is it also from randomly generated port?
> >
> > BR, Uze Choi
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org] On
> > Behalf Of Keane, Erich
> > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:35 AM
> > To: Macieira, Thiago; ashok.channa at samsung.com; uzchoi at samsung.com;
> d
> > thaler at microsoft.com; Jacob_Gladish at cable.comcast.com;
> cftg at openconne
> > ctivity.org
> > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> > Subject: [cftg] Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE:
> > OCF IANA Port Number Assignment
> >
> > The alternative to #2 is that we make NO connection in some cases. I
> > would think that hinting is a great idea, but it NEEDS to have some
> > sort of fallback in case the port requested is already occupied.
> >
> > In the case of a 'default' port, it would be no different from user-
> > hinted port, except that the user didn't provide it! Nothing really
> > would have to be done as far as IANA registration, though having one
> > put aside for us would be nice.
> >
> > That said, what is the registration status of the Discovery Port? We
> > use the CoAP discovery port, right?
> >
> > On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 12:02 +0900, ???(Uze Choi) wrote:
> > > Erich,
> > >
> > > Hinting explicitly with port and if fail then increase port number
> > > is
> > > problematic due to two reason.
> > > 1. As maintainer of this layer commented, specifying the port is
> > > against from connectivity agnostic and abstraction concept from API
> > > perspective.
> > > 2. User intend to occupy the specific number of port. But stack
> > > internally increase it. This is non-deterministic API which allows
> > > unexpected result.
> > >
> > > The default hinting with 'specific port' looks good idea.
> > > : I think this is same to what I have requested until now. But
> > > default port occupation, what is required without IANA
> > > registration?
> > >
> > > BR, Uze Choi
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-
> > > bo
> > > unces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Keane, Erich
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:31 AM
> > > To: ashok.channa at samsung.com; Jacob_Gladish at cable.comcast.com;
> > > dthale
> > > r at microsoft.com; cftg at openconnectivity.org; Macieira, Thiago
> > > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; wovander at cisco.com
> > > Subject: Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF
> > > IANA
> > > Port Number Assignment
> > >
> > > The hinting mechanism is that the initialization function in
> > > IoTivity
> > > takes a 'suggested port number' as a parameter. The stack will
> > > then
> > > attempt to use that one first. If the port is already taken (or
> > > the
> > > OS
> > > won't issue it for some reason), the stack will try the next one,
> > > and
> > > continue the process.
> > >
> > > The common reason for registering an IANA port is so that OTHER
> > > applications will know where to find you. SO, you register 80, so
> > > that
> > > there is a proper default any time someone wants to connect to your
> > > server via http unsolicited.
> > >
> > > The reason (IMO) that we do not NEED an IANA port registered, is
> > > that
> > > the unsolicited connections never happen. All connections are
> > > preceded
> > > by a discovery request, and responses to said discovery results in
> > > the
> > > port being known.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, if we made the default (hinting '0') a specific
> > > port, it might be useful to HAVE it registered so that we don't
> > > unintentionally step on someone else's registered port.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2016-04-26 at 12:52 +0000, Gladish, Jacob wrote:
> > > > Can someone elaborate on what a "hinting mechanism" is? If
> > > > there's
> > > > an
> > > > API that allows me to configure locally used interfaces and
> > > > ports,
> > > > I
> > > > would expect those to be used or get an error.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-
> > > > dev-
> > > > bo
> > > > unces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Dave Thaler
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 9:49 PM
> > > > To: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>; cftg at openconnect
> > > > iv
> > > > it
> > > > y.org; ashok.channa at samsung.com
> > > > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Wouter van der Beek
> > > > (wovander)
> > > > <
> > > > wovander at cisco.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF
> > > > IANA
> > > > Port Number Assignment
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Thiago here.
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.o
> > > > > rg
> > > > > ]
> > > > > On
> > > > > Behalf Of Thiago Macieira
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 8:51 AM
> > > > > To: cftg at openconnectivity.org; ashok.channa at samsung.com
> > > > > Cc: Wouter van der Beek (wovander) <wovander at cisco.com>; Uze
> > > > > Choi
> > > > > <uzchoi at samsung.com>; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [cftg] Re: Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF
> > > > > IANA
> > > > > Port Number Assignment
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me repeat, once again:
> > > > >
> > > > > IANA-defined ports without a hinting mechanism so that each
> > > > > application can suggest which port it wants to bind to is worse
> > > > > than the current situation.
> > > > > Applications may race to bind to the first port.
> > > > >
> > > > > If a hinting mechanism is present, then your problem is
> > > > > solved,
> > > > > without requiring IANA assignment.
> > > > >
> > > > > On segunda-feira, 25 de abril de 2016 12:23:43 PDT ASHOKBABU
> > > > > CHANNA
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > When Out-Of-Proc model feature comes into IoTivity, it will
> > > > > > solve
> > > > > > multiple applications issue with IANA defined ports. Before
> > > > > > that,
> > > > > > define specific IANA ports help to resolve multiple
> > > > > > discoveries
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > the same resources after every restart.
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Ashok
> > > > > > ------- Original Message -------
> > > > > > Sender : Wouter van der Beek (wovander)<wovander at cisco.com>
> > > > > > Date
> > > > > > :
> > > > > Apr
> > > > > > 25, 2016 14:26 (GMT+05:30) Title : RE: [cftg] Re: Re: [dev]
> > > > > > [cftg] Re:
> > > > > > Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment one can
> > > > > > define
> > > > > > multiple IANA ports? but have more android apps than defined
> > > > > > ports.
> > > > > > Does not sound right to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind Regards,
> > > > > > Wouter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity
> > > > > > .o
> > > > > > rg
> > > > > > ]
> > > > > > On Behalf Of ???(Uze Choi) Sent: 25 April 2016 09:54
> > > > > > To: cftg at openconnectivity.org; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.or
> > > > > > g
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [cftg] Re: Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE:
> > > > > > OCF
> > > > > > IANA
> > > > > > Port Number Assignment This is reason why I requested
> > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > ports.
> > > > > > Of course, in your case, IoTivity should increase the port
> > > > > > until
> > > > > > available port found. BR, Uze Choi
> > > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity
> > > > > > .o
> > > > > > rg
> > > > > > ]
> > > > > > On Behalf Of Wouter van der Beek (wovander) Sent: Monday,
> > > > > > April
> > > > > > 25,
> > > > > > 2016
> > > > > > 5:51 PM
> > > > > > To: ???(Uze Choi); cftg at openconnectivity.org;
> > > > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [cftg] Re: Re:
> > > > > > [dev]
> > > > > > [cftg]
> > > > > > Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment Well, if
> > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > android apps are used on the same port, that just will fail.
> > > > > > Hence
> > > > > > this is not an solution that will work..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind Regards,
> > > > > > Wouter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity
> > > > > > .o
> > > > > > rg
> > > > > > ]
> > > > > > On Behalf Of ???(Uze Choi) Sent: 25 April 2016 02:25
> > > > > > To: cftg at openconnectivity.org; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.or
> > > > > > g
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [cftg] Re: Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE:
> > > > > > OCF
> > > > > > IANA
> > > > > > Port Number Assignment Hi Wouter,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because of Android and iOS, we should consider multiple
> > > > > > applications
> > > > > > which is same meaning to multiple OCF/IoTivity instances. For
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > multiple instance, device will requires the other port beyond
> > > > > > coap
> > > > > > default port (e.g., 5683). So that Let?s use the registered
> > > > > > port
> > > > > > rather than system randomly assigning port.
> > > > > > BR, Uze Choi
> > > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity
> > > > > > .o
> > > > > > rg
> > > > > > ]
> > > > > > On Behalf Of Wouter van der Beek (wovander) Sent: Saturday,
> > > > > > April
> > > > > > 23,
> > > > > > 2016 12:49 AM
> > > > > > To: uzchoi at samsung.com; cftg at openconnectivity.org;
> > > > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [cftg] Re: Re:
> > > > > > [dev]
> > > > > > [cftg]
> > > > > > Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment How will
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > IANA
> > > > > > registration help the sandboxed android apps?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind Regards,
> > > > > > Wouter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity
> > > > > > .o
> > > > > > rg
> > > > > > ]
> > > > > > On Behalf Of ??? Sent: 22 April 2016 14:18
> > > > > > To: cftg at openconnectivity.org; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.or
> > > > > > g
> > > > > > Subject: [cftg] Re: Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF
> > > > > > IANA
> > > > > > Port Number Assignment Hi, I think Ashok (maintainer of
> > > > > > discovrry&connectivity-CA layer) testing gives us important
> > > > > > message.
> > > > > > If we consider OCF application on Android or iOS which
> > > > > > usually
> > > > > > targets multiple sandboxed concept applications from market,
> > > > > > multiple ports allocation for unicast socket channel is
> > > > > > inevitable.
> > > > > > Otherwise we need to restrict OCF/IoTivity into constraint
> > > > > > device
> > > > > > only.
> > > > > > Furthermore Current IoTivity allocate the unicast port
> > > > > > randomly
> > > > > > which always open the possibility to invade non permitted
> > > > > > area
> > > > > > (port), which requires fix before commercial product release.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > believe OCF/IoTivity should resolve the problem with IANA
> > > > > > registration. Only left issue is whether we will request
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > port or multiple ports registration.
> > > > > > IoTivity perspective it will be decided by Ashok who
> > > > > > maintains
> > > > > > connectivity layer. BR Uze Choi
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---?? ???---
> > > > > > ??? : ASHOKBABU CHANNA
> > > > > > ???? : 2016/04/22 19:44 (GMT+09:00)
> > > > > > ?? : Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port
> > > > > > Number
> > > > > > Assignment
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes. In my opinion registering to IANA like any other
> > > > > > services
> > > > > > (
> > > > > > http -80, allseen ..etc) makes more usability from user
> > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > This makes sense to not to discover all the time about
> > > > > > resource
> > > > > > uris
> > > > > > before operating.( if its not reachable, we will discover
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > normal scenario).
> > > > > > It is possible that ipv6 gets new address, but its rare
> > > > > > instance
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > home scenarios where IPV4 is used. And also for IPV6 if it
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > map
> > > > > > mac address, it might not get changed as suggested.
> > > > > > In our testing even we use reuse address, only the last
> > > > > > binded
> > > > > > application gets the unicast data. So it ruled out using a
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > unicast port. and Registering the port via API from developer
> > > > > > makes
> > > > > > confusion as we are supporting multiple transports which
> > > > > > might
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > require port at all. API should not be transport specific
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > view.
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Ashok
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------- Original Message -------
> > > > > > Sender : Markus Jung<markus.jung at samsung.com> Senior
> > > > > > Engineer/IoT
> > > > > > Lab./Samsung Electronics Date : Apr 21, 2016 23:57
> > > > > > (GMT+05:30)
> > > > > > Title :
> > > > > > Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number
> > > > > > Assignment
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > i agree to Thiago's suggestion.
> > > > > > Additionally, I think that IoTivity should by default use
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > port (e.g., 5683) and not split up different functionalities
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > multiple ports (e.g., only discovery on 5683 and data
> > > > > > transmission
> > > > > > on other ports - that's how it works now). I know this has
> > > > > > implications on having multiple instances running on one
> > > > > > device,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > the default is to have only one instance per device. I think
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > the root cause of the evil, that leads to the request of
> > > > > > reserving a
> > > > > > set of IANA port numbers ... BR Markus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------- Original Message -------
> > > > > > Sender : Thiago Macieira<thiago.macieira at intel.com>
> > > > > > Date : Apr 22, 2016 02:53 (GMT+09:00) Title : Re: [dev]
> > > > > > [cftg]
> > > > > > Re:
> > > > > > Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've already answered, but I will repeat:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We need an API in IoTivity to suggest which port number to
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > (a
> > > > > > hint). A hint means that the code will do its best effort to
> > > > > > achieve
> > > > > > that, including ignore it. The IoTivity implementation should
> > > > > > try
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > bind to that port; if it fails, it should try with port=0 so
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > OS
> > > > > > will assign an arbitrary port.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We need an API in IoTivity for the applicationto know which
> > > > > > ports
> > > > > > the stack is actually bound to, because it might be different
> > > > > > from the hint.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We do not need IANA-assigned port numbers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On quinta-feira, 21 de abril de 2016 02:00:15 PDT ??? wrote:
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > I tested on the several router-hub environment, no
> > > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > IP
> > > > > > > changed in testing condition. You misunderstand my problem.
> > > > > > > I don?t know, why we need to enforce the same IP after
> > > > > > > reboot.
> > > > > > > I just want good solution in usual home router-hub
> > > > > > > condition.
> > > > > > > I want solution to resolve my issue, but only discussion
> > > > > > > happen
> > > > > > > without answer.
> > > > > > > ------- Original Message -------
> > > > > > > Sender : Thiago Macieira
> > > > > > > Date : 2016-04-21 00:26 (GMT+09:00) Title : Re: [dev]
> > > > > > > [cftg]
> > > > > > > RE:
> > > > > > > OCF IANA Port Number Assignment
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Before we discuss that, do you have a plan for enforcing
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > get the same IP address after reboot?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On quarta-feira, 20 de abril de 2016 08:55:24 PDT ???
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi, All.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm IoTivity client developer for TV and SmartThings Hub.
> > > > > > > > We find issue in our product verification phase about
> > > > > > > > re-discovery problem.
> > > > > > > > We should re-discovery step after target device reboot.
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > very inconvenience user exprience. This issue is
> > > > > > > > critical.
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > It makes hard to release our product.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Our product needs assigned port number to reduce re-
> > > > > > > > discovery
> > > > > problem.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------- Original Message ------- Sender : Thiago Macieira
> > > > > > > > Date :
> > > > > > > > 2016-04-19 15:20 (GMT+09:00) Title : Re: [dev] [cftg] RE:
> > > > > > > > OCF IANA Port Number Assignment
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's an IoTivity problem. We chose not to provide this
> > > > > > > > functionality.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We can change our choice. We don't need an assigned port
> > > > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > to change our minds.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Em ter?a-feira, 19 de abril de 2016, ?s 06:16:45 PDT, ???
> > > > > > > > escreveu:
> > > > > > > > > IoTivity has already api for port setting.
> > > > > > > > > However it diesnit work and we had long discussion for
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > api fix with John Light before. For the implementation
> > > > > > > > > choice
> > > > > > > > > detail please refer to my today reply mail to Ravi. BR
> > > > > > > > > Uze
> > > > > > > > > Choi
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ---?? ???---
> > > > > > > > > ??? : Thiago Macieira/thiago.macieira at intel.com
> > > > > > > > > ???? : 2016/04/19 14:59 (GMT+09:00) ?? : Re: [cftg] RE:
> > > > > > > > > OCF
> > > > > IANA
> > > > > > > > > Port Number Assignment
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We add an API to IoTivity that informs the port
> > > > > > > > > numbers
> > > > > > > > > (plural, since we need two) that the application would
> > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > the stack to bind to and an API that informs which
> > > > > > > > > ports
> > > > > > > > > the stack bound to.
> > > > > > > > > Applications that desire to use the same port number
> > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > reboot or a server shut down must record that port
> > > > > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > > somewhere while the stack is in operation and will just
> > > > > > > > > inform
> > > > > > > > > it again when it's starting up. Em ter?a-feira, 19 de
> > > > > > > > > abril
> > > > > > > > > de
> > > > > > > > > 2016, ?s 05:23:55 PDT, ??? escreveu: > This proposal
> > > > > > > > > target
> > > > > > > > > the server with single IoTivity stack. > I believe most
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > cases will be matched with it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, could you explain for port hint in detail? >
> > > > > > > > > BR,
> > > > > > > > > Uze
> > > > > > > > > Choi > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ---?? ???--- > ??? : Thiago
> > > > > Macieira/thiago.macieira at intel.com >
> > > > > > > > > ????
> > > > > > > > > :
> > > > > > > > > 2016/04/19 13:43 (GMT+09:00) > ?? : Re: [cftg] RE: OCF
> > > > > > > > > IANA
> > > > > > > > > Port Number Assignment > > Hi Uze Note that having
> > > > > > > > > IANA-assigned port numbers without a hinting system >
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > worse
> > > > > > > > > than the current state. Upon device reboot, two
> > > > > > > > > processes
> > > > > > > > > could > race to bind to the known ports, which means
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > numbers could invert > from boot to boot. So now a
> > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > tried to reach the older service > would find a
> > > > > > > > > responsive
> > > > > > > > > server but with a different service. That would >
> > > > > > > > > result
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > error to the requests. So we'd need to implement the
> > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > hint
> > > > > > > > > > functionality I explained. But if we do that, we
> > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > the assigned > port numbers from IANA. Em ter?a-feira,
> > > > > > > > > 19 de abril de 2016, ?s 04:35:49 > PDT, ??? escreveu: >
> > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > Dave,
> > > > > > > > > > This proposal is not for hundreds percent >
> > > > > > > > > > guarantee.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > During we develop the client application, we found that
> > > > > > > > > this >
> > > > > > > > > will lessen the > rediscovery step after target device
> > > > > > > > > reboot.
> > > > > > > > > Regarding > hint (I dont know > detail
> > > > > > > > > yet)
> > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > welcome to contribution also. BR Uze > Choi > > > ---??
> > > > > > > > > ???---
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > ??? :
> > > > > > > > > Dave
> > > > > > > > > Thaler/dthaler at microsoft.com > ???? : > 2016/04/19
> > > > > > > > > 13:18
> > > > > > > > > (GMT+09:00) > ??
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > RE: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number > Assignment >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > > should not have an IANA assigned port (at least for any
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > reason we know of > now). If a device reboots, you
> > > > > > > > > can?t
> > > > > > > > > assume the IP
> > > > > > > > > > address is necessarily > the same, let alone the
> > > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > > number,
> > > > > > > > > so the peer > must be prepared to > rediscover it from
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > persistent stable id other than > the IP/port. > An app
> > > > > > > > > asking
> > > > > > > > > to reuse the same port number as last boot is > fine,
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > it?s just a hint used for optimization, an app should
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > rely on it
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > being > granted. > Dave > > From: cftg at openconnectivity
> > > > > > > > > .o
> > > > > > > > > rg
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org] On Behalf > Of ???
> > > > > > > > > Sent:
> > > > > > > > > Monday, April
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 18, 2016 9:13 PM > To: thiago.macieira at intel.com;
> > > > > > > > > cftg at openconnectivity.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org;
> > > > > > > > > > > ravi.subramaniam at intel.com; >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > michael.koster at smartthings.com Subject: Re: Re: [cftg]
> > > > > > > > > RE:
> > > > > > > > > OCF
> > > > > > > > > IANA Port
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Number Assignment > > Hi Thiago, > Regarding hint I
> > > > > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > > > assume clearly however, if you think about the port
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > designation api, it has some issue as I explained in
> > > > > > > > > > mail
> > > > > > > > > > for answer to > Ravi just little before.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Originally > iotivity had a logic assigning the >
> > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > port before, we figure out > that this port is already
> > > > > > > > > registered in
> > > > > > > > > > IANA with different purpose. This > is the reason why
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > change the logic > into random port number assignment.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BR
> > > > > > > > > Uze Choi > > > ---?? ???--- > ??? : Thiago >
> > > > > > > > > Macieira/thiago.macieira at intel.com > ???? : 2016/04/19
> > > > > > > > > 12:02
> > > > > > > > > (GMT+09:00)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ?? : Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > > > don't need
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > reserved port numbers with IANA for that. As I said
> > > > > > > > > before,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > any number is
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > fine if the implementation can remember which one it
> > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > last. We can
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > add > the API to IoTivity for the implementation to
> > > > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > hint on which > port number to use. This assumes that
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > API can store the > port number > it last had. As a
> > > > > > > > > hint,
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > the port number isn't available, the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > implementation will just choose another. Em ter?a-
> > > > > > > > > > feira,
> > > > > > > > > > 19
> > > > > > > > > > de abril de
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2016, ?s 02:54:42 PDT, ??? escreveu: > Hi Thiago, > I
> > > > > > > > > > assume
> > > > > > > > > > DHCP will
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > work > > most of cases currently. > This proposal does
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > intend to cover every > > case but just maximize the
> > > > > > > > > hit
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ratio. BR Uze Choi > > > ---??
> > > > > > > > > ???--- > > > ??? : Thiago Macieira/thiago.macieira at inte
> > > > > > > > > l.
> > > > > > > > > co
> > > > > > > > > m >
> > > > > ???? :
> > > > > > > > > 2016/04/19 11:44 > > (GMT+09:00) > ?? : Re: [cftg] RE:
> > > > > > > > > OCF
> > > > > > > > > IANA Port Number Assignment > > Hi > > Uze > > I don't
> > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > reserving port numbers will help us in that > >
> > > > > > > > > scenario.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If a device is able to keep its IP address and port
> > > > > > > > > number,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > then we don't > need reserved port
> > > > > > > > > numbers:
> > > > > > > > > any number is fine. If a device > > isn't able to >
> > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > address or the port number, then rediscovery is > >
> > > > > > > > > necessary
> > > > > > > > > and any > port number is also fine. > > I'll also claim
> > > > > > > > > that >
> > > > > > > > > > having a finite range is harmful because it limits us
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > > certain number > > of instances running on a given IP
> > > > > > > > > address.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Moreover, please note > that > IPv6 with privacy
> > > > > > > > > > extensions
> > > > > > > > > enabled, it's very > likely that the > device's > IP
> > > > > > > > > address
> > > > > > > > > will change after a reboot (it's > possible to retain >
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > information and resume using a random IP if it's >
> > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > valid
> > > > > > > > > after > a > reboot, but it's not required. Linux
> > > > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > implement > that, for > > example).
> > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > IPv4, it's even worse since the decision is taken > out
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > the device's hands completely and relies on the DHCP
> > > > > > > > > server
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > provisioning > > with the same address. > > Em ter?a-
> > > > > > > > > feira,
> > > > > > > > > 19
> > > > > > > > > de abril de 2016, ?s > 02:06:40 > PDT, ??? escreveu: >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Currently IoTivity use random number, but > this logic
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > causes issue from > > client application , which
> > > > > > > > > eventually
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > finding the server device > > again when target reboot.
> > > > > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > as I
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > remember Thiago also understood this > > requirement
> > > > > > > > > before. >
> > > > > > > > > Discussion was > not for undiscoverable service. > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ---?? ???--- > > > ???
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thiago > Macieira/thiago.macieira at intel.com > > ???? :
> > > > > > > > > 2016/04/19 >
> > > > > > > > > 00:38
> > > > > > > > > (GMT+09:00) > > > ?? : Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port
> > > > > > > > > Number
> > > > > > > > > Assignment
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > IoTivity > decided to use random port numbers and
> > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > has been no
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > discussion to > change that. The port number is
> > > > > > > > > > assigned
> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > the OS from
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > any > > of the non- > privileged unused port numbers at
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > time the > application > > starts. > > > > > We had an
> > > > > > > > > inconclusive discussion about
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > port number for services that > > > aren't
> > > > > > > > > discoverable,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > instead are
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > well-known, like cloud services. > > > That discussion
> > > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > > finish, so
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > there are no conclusions yet. > > > > But > for now, we
> > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > need assigned
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > port numbers. > > > > Em segunda-feira, 18 > de abril
> > > > > > > > > > de
> > > > > > > > > > 2016, ?s
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 16:12:27 > PDT, ???(Uze Choi) > > > > escreveu: > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ravi,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I got it, this could be IoTivity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific > issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During reboot the device. most of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > same in the > local > > > network. > > > > > > For the
> > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > port, > there are two > approaches. > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > One, is to store the > previously > assigned port. > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The other is to use registered port. > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > IoTivity have decided to use the registered port >
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > several reasons. > > > (second option) > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In this case I?m not > > sure to define the port name
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > ocf naming.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR, > > Uze Choi > > > > > > From:
> > > > > > > > > cftg at openconnectivity.org > >
> > > > > > > > > [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org]
> > > > > > > > > On >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Behalf Of Subramaniam, Ravi > > Sent: Monday, April 18,
> > > > > > > > > 2016
> > > > > > > > > 3:38 PM >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To: uzchoi at samsung.com; 'Michael > > Koster'; 'Aja
> > > > > > > > > Murray';
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; > > cftg at openconnectiv
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > y.
> > > > > > > > > org
> > > > > Subject:
> > > > > > > RE:
> > > > > > > > > > > > [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port > > Number Assignment >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Uze, > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > recognize that
> > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > stack for
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > multiple instances may require an > > > > > individual
> > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > (each instance does not always need to have individual
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > port but let?s assume they do). I don?t understand
> > > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > need to be > > > > > registered ports. Also what
> > > > > > > > > happens
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > situation where there are > more > > > > than the 5
> > > > > > > > > instances
> > > > > > > > > (wouldn?t we have issues because we would > have > run
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > out of reserved ports?) > > > > > > > > > > > > From
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I can >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > understand from reading the thread is that > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > a)
> > > > > > > > > There > are multiple stacks on a device ? each stack
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > own IP >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > address > and port. > > > > > > b) The URIs are tied to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > IP
> > > > > > > > > > address/port. > > > > > > > c) So when the stack
> > > > > > > > > > reboots
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > gets a new IP
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > address, the URI that > the > > > Client has does not
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > because the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > client has the URI > associated with > > > the > > >
> > > > > > > > > older
> > > > > > > > > IP address.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > d) So the > Client has to do resource
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > discovery
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > again and this
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > causes all > > > the OIC > Devices to respond and
> > > > > > > > > Client
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > to process all
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > the responses > > > to > > > > get the new URIs for
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > Client. > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did I > understand the issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correctly?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this is the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > objective then > > > there > > > > may be other ways to
> > > > > > > > > solve
> > > > > > > > > this ?same
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > objective?. If I have > > > > misunderstood, > > >
> > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > try explaining
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ravi > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > From:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > cftg at openconnectivity.org > [mailto:cftg at openconnectivi
> > > > > > > > > ty
> > > > > > > > > .o
> > > > > > > > > rg]
> > > > > > > > > On > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Behalf Of ???(Uze Choi) Sent: > Sunday, April 17, 2016
> > > > > > > > > 11:17
> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Subramaniam, Ravi ; 'Michael > Koster' > > > ; 'Aja
> > > > > > > > > Murray'
> > > > > > > > > ;
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; > cftg at openconnectivit
> > > > > > > > > y.
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > g Subject:
> > > > > > RE:
> > > > > > > > > > > > [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port > Number Assignment > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi > Ravi > > > > > > Could you > clarify your
> > > > > > > > > declaration
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > ?same objective?? > > > > > > > This is proposed > for
> > > > > > > > > multiple IoTivity instance(stack)s in a > single > > >
> > > > > > > > > device.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Each
> > > > > > > > > > stack needs to assign individual port. > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > BR,
> > > > > > > > > > Uze
> > > > > > > > > Choi > > > > > > > From:
> > > > > > > > > cftg at openconnectivity.org > [mailto:cftg at openconnectivi
> > > > > > > > > ty
> > > > > > > > > .o
> > > > > > > > > rg]
> > > > > > > > > On > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Behalf Of Subramaniam, Ravi > Sent: Monday, April 18,
> > > > > > > > > 2016
> > > > > > > > > 3:08 PM > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To: > uzchoi at samsung.com; > 'Michael Koster'; 'Aja
> > > > > > > > > Murray';
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; > cftg at openconnect
> > > > > > > > > > > iv
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > y.org Cc:
> > > > > > > > > '???';
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > '??'; > > > '????'; '???'; > '???'; '???'; '???';
> > > > > > > > > > > rami.jung at samsung.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: > > > [cftg] RE: > OCF IANA Port Number
> > > > > > > > > > Assignment > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Uze, > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn?t
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explore
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > other ways > of achieving the same > objective? I may >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > to understand the > details better .. but > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > > reserved ports use
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > seems rather > heavy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > of using only
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > fixed Device ID in > the URI as in the OIC > URI and >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > resolving to endpoints in the transport > layer was
> > > > > > > > > meant
> > > > > > > > > to >
> > > > > > > > > solve this > > > very
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > problem (multiple OIC > Devices or stack > instances
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > platform). > > > In > > > addition, > for the case >
> > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > there are multiple OIC Device from a single > > > >
> > > > > > > > > IP/port,
> > > > > > > > > the > device ID in the URI is used to select the right
> > > > > > > > > OIC
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Device. > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ravi > > > > > > > > > > > > From: > >
> > > > > > > > > > cftg at openconnectivity.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org] On > > > > > Behalf
> > > > > > > > > Of
> > > > > > > > > ???(Uze
> > > > > > > > > Choi)
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:46 PM > > > To: > >
> > > > > > > > > 'Michael
> > > > > > > > > Koster' ; 'Aja Murray' > > > ;
> > > > > > > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cftg at openconnectivity.org Cc: '???' ; '??' >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ;
> > > > > > > > > '????' ; '???' > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ; '???' ; '???' > > > ; '???' ; > > > rami.jung at samsung
> > > > > > > > > .c
> > > > > > > > > om
> > > > > > > > > Subject: > [cftg] > RE: OCF IANA Port Number > > >
> > > > > > > > > Assignment
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi > Michael, > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me extend
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > channel > into > Core TG and IoTivity. This > > >
> > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > related with
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > specification > also. > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Michael,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > understand why we > separate the port for secure and
> > > > > > > > > non-secure channel.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, > we need to avoid the consecutive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > number from
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > non-secure > > > port > > > > to secure port as
> > > > > > > > > follows.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > From
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > IoTivity start, stack will > internally assign the port
> > > > > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > > by +1 >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > increasing if port is already > occupied. > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > > that port
> > > > > > > > > > 4380
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > is > already occupied in the > non-secure mode, then
> > > > > > > > > stack
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > will assign the > port 4381 which will > cause
> > > > > > > > > > conflict
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > port ?4381 UDP
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - > > > > ocf-coaps-1? > > > > > > > Please update
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > final
> > > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > 4380 UDP
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > ocf-coap-1 > > > > > > > port 4380 TCP - ocf-coap-1 > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > 4381
> > > > > > > > > UDP - ocf-coap-2 > > > > > > > port 4381 TCP - ocf-
> > > > > > > > > coap-2
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > port 7380 UDP - > ocf-coaps-1 (7380 is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > number, please
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > assign > > > appropriate > one.) > > > > > > port 7380
> > > > > > > > > TCP
> > > > > > > > > - >
> > > > > > > > > ocf-coaps-1
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > port 7381 UDP - > ocf-coaps-2 > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7381
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TCP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ocf-coaps-2 > > > > > > > (more..port). > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ?We may
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > need to justify why we need > so many ports.? > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > Should we
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > describe why this is required? > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ashok,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I?ll create on the issue on Jira > once port proposal
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > updated from
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Michael. > > > > > > Please > handle it. > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > From
> > > > > > > > > > > the CA stack
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > please > check whether it is > possible to assign the
> > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > incrementally with > separation between > secure port
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > non-secure port.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR, Uze Choi > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael Koster
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [mailto:michael.koster at smartthings.com] > > > > Sent:
> > > > > > > > > Tuesday,
> > > > > > > > > March 01,
> > > > > > > > > 2016 > 7:50 AM > > > To: Aja Murray > > > Cc: > ???;
> > > > > > > > > ??;
> > > > > ????;
> > > > > > > > > ???; ???; ???; ???; > uzchoi at samsung.com > >
> >
> > > > > Subject: Re: >
> > > > > > > > > Introducing Uze Choi
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > IANA Port > Number Assignment > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are no legal obligations and >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no cost.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > should get > > > > consensus on what we want to do, so
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > would be great if OSWG and SWG > > > > agree on the
> > > > > > > > > registration. > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I guess my question is > if we really need 5 ports
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > service. > > > IESG > > > makes it > clear that IP
> > > > > > > > > endpoints
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > expected to multiplex users of a > > > service > on a
> > > > > > > > > > port.
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > understand we > want multiple service *instances* and >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > to have it's own port. >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would think we would > allocate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-secure port
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > for testing but > > > mostly > > > would need > secure
> > > > > > > > > ports.
> > > > > > > > > I would
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > propose to reserve one port each TCP > > > and > > > >
> > > > > > > > > UDP
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > non-secure
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > coap, and the other ports for secure coaps on both > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > UDP
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > TCP. By doing this we are actually requesting up to 10
> > > > > > > > > ports >
> > > > > > > > > and > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > submitting 10 forms. We may need to justify why we need
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > ports.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So specifically: > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4380 > UDP - ocf-coap > > > > > > port 4380 TCP - ocf-
> > > > > > > > > coap
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > port 4381 > UDP - ocf-coaps-1 > > > > > > port 4381 TCP
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > ocf-coaps-1
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > port 4382 UDP - ocf-coaps-2 > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4382
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > TCP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ocf-coaps-2 > > > > > > > > (and of we need more) > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > 4383
> > > > > > > > > UDP
> > > > > > > > > - ocf-coaps-3 > > > > > > > > port 4383 TCP - ocf-
> > > > > > > > > coaps-3
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > 4384 UDP - ocf-coaps-4 > > > > > > > > port 4384 TCP -
> > > > > > > > > ocf-coaps-4 > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this > what > is intended? Do we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make a request
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > to review this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 29, > 2016, at 2:15 > PM, Aja Murray
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still like to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > know if there is any cost or > legal implications > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > reserving these port numbers, and if > we need OSWG
> > > > > > > > > > > and/or
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > SWG approval
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > before deciding on them. > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > When
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > the time
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > comes, here is the address information you > requested
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > OCF:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mailing Address: 3855 SW 153rd > Drive,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Beaverton,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > OR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 97003, > USA
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Email: > admin at openinterconnect.org > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Aja > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From:
> > > > > > > > > Michael Koster [
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mailto:michael.koster at smartthings.com] Sent:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Saturday,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > February 27,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2016 > > > > > 5:25 PM > > > To: uzchoi at samsung.com > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cc:
> > > > > > > > > ??? < >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > jinchoe at samsung.com>; ?? < > > >
> > > > > ashok.channa at samsung.com>; ????
> > > > > > > > > < > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > markus.jung at samsung.com>; ??? < > > >
> > > > > > > > > > junghyun.oh at samsung.com>; ??? <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > jjack.lee at samsung.com>; Aja Murray < > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > amurray at vtmgroup.com>; ???
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > < > > > > > soohong.park at samsung.com>; ??? < > > >
> > > > > > > > > jinguk.jeong at samsung.com> > Subject: > Re: > > >
> > > > > > > > > Introducing
> > > > > > > > > Uze Choi
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > IANA Port Number Assignment > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > OK,
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > have a couple of questions before I fill out > the
> > > > > > > > > requests. >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > can make the OCF organization the > assignee, and I >
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > the contact.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I > > > just need an address > and email for OCF. >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > There are no contiguous blocks > of unassigned port
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > numbers below
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 4380-4388. > > > Does it matter > what the port
> > > > > > > > > > numbers
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > are?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, IANA won't > assign a block of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ports,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > port needs
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > to have a > > > service > > > > name. > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why > 5 ports? How should we construct the > service
> > > > > > > > > names?
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > assume they > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > instances of the same OCF > CoAP service, so is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > simply > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ocf-coap-instance-1, > ocf-coap-instance-2, etc? > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are > multiple devices > distinguished by the device
> > > > > > > > > ID?
> > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > the URIs are
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > discinct between > devices, do we need more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > port?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ports are > now assigned for use by one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more transport
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > protocols. > Will > > > we > > > > need to assign TCP
> > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > these ports as well? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we
> > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > non-secure ports in this new range? > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2016, at
> > > > > > > > > > 5:26
> > > > > > > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > > > ??? < > > > > uzchoi at samsung.com> wrote: > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it > standard stuff > or open source
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > otherwise
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > common stuff? > > > > > > > Daniel and Jin > any
> > > > > > > > > opinion?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > BR Uze Choi > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---?? ???
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ??? : Michael
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Koster/michael.koster at smartthings.com ???? : >
> > > > > > > > > > 2016/02/24
> > > > > > > > > > 22:57 > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (GMT+09:00) > > > ?? : Re: Introducing Uze Choi > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We will require > an assignee and a contact for these.
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > be > the > > > contact, > > > to > answer questions
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > IANA
> > > > > > > > > and track the > process.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the assignee should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > persistent administrative > > > > role > > > at OCF. >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Aja, who should be the OCF > assignee when we
> > > > > > > > > > > register
> > > > > > > > > > > identifiers like
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > port > > > numbers and > content formats with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bodies
> > > > > > > > > > > > > like IANA and
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > IETF? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Michael
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2016,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5:39
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AM, Michael
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Koster < > > > > michael.koster at smartthings.com> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > Uze, > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > checking into
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > some > procedural > questions. It will require a > > >
> > > > > > > > > separate application for > each port and > there is a
> > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > process. I will > > > start the process > today. > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Feb
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 24, 2016, at
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2:07 AM, > ??????(Uze Choi) < > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > uzchoi at samsung.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > > > > We should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finalize the code by
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > this week for > this upcoming IoTivity > > > > release.
> > > > > > > > > Could
> > > > > > > > > you check it ASAP if > possible? > > > > > > BR, Uze
> > > > > > > > > Choi
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From:
> > > > > > > > > ???(Uze
> > > > > > > > > Choi) [ > > > > mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com] Sent: >
> > > > > > > > > Tuesday,
> > > > > > > > > February 23,
> > > > > > > > > 2016 8:50 PM > > > > To: ' jinchoe at samsung.com'; ' > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > michael.koster at smartthings.com' > > > > Cc: > > >
> > > > > > > > > ASHOKBABU
> > > > > > > > > CHANNA ( >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ashok.channa at samsung.com); > > > >
> markus.jung at samsun
> > > > > > > > > > g.
> > > > > > > > > > co
> > > > > > > > > > m;
> > > > > > > > > > ??? ( >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > junghyun.oh at samsung.com); ???( > > > >
> > > > > jjack.lee at samsung.com) Subject:
> > > > > > RE:
> > > > > > > > > > Introducing Uze Choi > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > > Michael, >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jin > explained, I need to register the > port region
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > UDP
> > > > > > > > > unicast
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > port > > > > for OIC(IoTivity) Server as > follows. > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There are some > requirement for port assignment for
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > OIC
> > > > > > > > > communication to > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > IANA. > > > > > > > As a UDP multicast socket, >
> > > > > > > > > IoTivity
> > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > Port
> > > > > > > > > 5683
> > > > > > > > > which is CoAP > default > > > port registered in >
> > > > > > > > > IANA,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > and for unicast socket, > OIC stack(IoTivity)
> > > > > > > > > > > randomly
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > assign the port >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > from > > > the system > currently. > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sometime,
> > > > > > > > > single device can launch multiple OIC > instances
> > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > > multiple unicast sockets assignment. >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (multicast
> > > > > > > > > > > > > socket
> > > > > > > > > is shared > > > > commonly) >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > However, this > random port assignment policy >
> > > > > > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > OIC client
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > re-discover > whenever OIC server restart, which >
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > cumbersome
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > task. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose the default >
> > > > > > > > > UDP
> > > > > > > > > unicast port for OIC for example > 3333~3337, > > > OIC
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > server > assign the port from 3333 always. > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > heard that you are the > person to know how to register
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > port into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > IANA > > > and > understand the related
> > > > > > > > > > > > > context.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Could you > help me for this > task? > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > BR, Uze Choi > > > > > > From: ??? [ > >
> > > > > > > > > > mailto:jinchoe at samsung.com]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 7:45 PM > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > ???;
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > michael.koster at smartthings.com Subject: Introducing > >
> > > > > > > > > Uze
> > > > > > > > > Choi
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > introduce my
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > colleague Uze Choi > > > > > > > > > > > > Uze Choi > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > uzchoi at samsung.com > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > belongs
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > SWG (Software
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Center) & > > > > > > is a (?THE) core member of
> > > > > > > > > Samsung
> > > > > > > > > IoTivity > activity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > He
> > > > > > > > > contacted
> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > with an issue > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > & I > recommended to contact you in turn. > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > short he has > in mind > > > > > > allocating certain
> > > > > > > > > UDP
> > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > numbers
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (maybe 5) > > > > > > > for exclusive CoAP or OIC usage
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > of the following. > > > > > > > > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > > physical
> > > > > > > > > > platform may
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > have > multiple (logical) OIC > devices > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (i.e.
> > > > > > > > > IoTivity instance), then > for unicast CoAP > message,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > a way for URI to differentiate each > instance is >
> > > > > > > > > > required.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right now IoTivity uses >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > > number for different instance > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > but due to > dynamic nature of port > number
> > > > > > > > > > > assignment, >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > upon rebooting, > sender may forget the > receiver's
> > > > > > > > > port
> > > > > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > & have to find > it again. > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > would help to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > assign a certain block > of UPD port number for such >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > usage. >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We may ask IANA to > allocate 5 UPD port numbers >
> > > > > > > > > > > exclusively for CoAP
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > or > > > OIC > > > > usage. > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > recommended Uze Choi to ask you, Samsung > IETF expert,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > whether > the approach is feasible & > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > so,
> > > > > > > > > how to proceed in IETF & > IANA. >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He will > send you a mail with more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > detail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in > advance for your kind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > consideration.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JinHyeock
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <~WRD174.jpg> > > > > -- > > Thiago > Macieira -
> > > > > > > > > thiago.macieira
> > > > > > > > > (AT)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > intel.com > > Software Architect - Intel > Open Source
> > > > > > > > > Technology Center
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira > (AT)
> > > > > > > > > > > intel.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Software
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Architect > - Intel Open Source Technology Center > --
> > > > > > > > > Thiago
> > > > > > > > > Macieira
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > thiago.macieira > (AT) intel.com Software Architect - >
> > > > > > > > > Intel
> > > > > > > > > Open Source Technology Center -- Thiago Macieira -
> > > > > > > > > thiago.macieira > (AT) intel.com Software Architect -
> > > > > > > > > Intel
> > > > > > > > > Open Source Technology Center -- Thiago Macieira
> > > > > > > > > - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect -
> > > > > > > > > Intel
> > > > > > > > > Open Source Technology Center
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology
> > > > > > > > Center
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > iotivity-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> > > > > > > > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
> > > > > > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > iotivity-dev mailing list
> > > > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> > > > > > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dr.techn. Markus Jung
> > > > > > IoT, IoTivity, OIC | IoT Lab
> > > > > > Software R&D Center | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd Mobile +82
> > > > > > 10
> > > > > > 3304
> > > > > > 8502 markus.jung at samsung.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > ------
> > > > > > ------ Sr. Technical Manager, Software Architect.
> > > > > > SRI-B, IoT Division/ IoTivity, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
> > > > > > +91-9880709710
> > > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > ------
> > > > > > ------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > ------
> > > > > > ------ Sr. Technical Manager, Software Architect.
> > > > > > SRI-B, IoT Division/ IoTivity, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
> > > > > > +91-9880709710
> > > > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > ------
> > > > > > ------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
> > > > > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > iotivity-dev mailing list
> > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> > > > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > iotivity-dev mailing list
> > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> > > > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > iotivity-dev mailing list
> > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> > > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
> > >
> >
