We probably just have to either pick one (flip 7 coins?), or get the OS to issue us one. ?
On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 10:20 +0900, ???(Uze Choi) wrote: > 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 openconne > ctivity.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 opencon > > ne > > 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 openconne > > > > ct > > > > 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 openconnectivi > > > > > > ty > > > > > > .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 openconnectivi > > > > > > ty > > > > > > .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 openconnectivi > > > > > > ty > > > > > > .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 openconnectivi > > > > > > ty > > > > > > .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 openconnectivi > > > > > > ty > > > > > > .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 openconnectivi > > > > > > > > > ty > > > > > > > > > .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 in > > > > > > > > > te > > > > > > > > > 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 openconnect > > > > > > > > > iv > > > > > > > > > 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 openconnecti > > > > > > > > > vi > > > > > > > > > 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 openconnectiv > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > 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 openconnecti > > > > > > > > > vi > > > > > > > > > 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 openconne > > > > > > > > > > > ct > > > > > > > > > > > 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 samsu > > > > > > > > > ng > > > > > > > > > .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 sams > > > > > > > > > > un > > > > > > > > > > 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-de > > > > > > > > v > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > >
