Just waiting (Maximum time)/2 can pass the TC I think. -----Original Message----- From: architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 9:21 AM To: architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org Cc: Mitch Kettrick; uzchoi at samsung.com; 'Richard Bardini'; '????'; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; 'Jacek Hryszkiewicz'; cert_wg at openconnectivity.org Subject: Re: [architecture_tg] RE: Re: [dev] [cert_wg] RE: CTT Gap status sharing request - IPv6 Updates
Our initial goal was to provide this as an errata to OIC 1.1 (maybe OIC 1.1.1). I don't think we need to test with a probability for randomness. That's QoI. I think we should test that the reply is neither: * immediate * longer than the maximum time On segunda-feira, 5 de dezembro de 2016 16:14:02 PST Mitch Kettrick wrote: > Hi, > > > > Combining two responses (one from Thiago and one from Uze). > > > > Thanks for the updated status. It sounds like this won?t be > implemented in the OIC v1.1 timeframe which is a departure from our > initial goal. That?s fine. I just want everyone to be aware that we > are not currently testing/certifying this feature. Until we have spec > text and a corresponding implementation, there is nothing we can do in the > CWG. > > > > Uze: Will we test it with probability basis for randomness? > > > > Good question. We?ll also need help to define the test requirements > for this so that the CTT can apply the proper pass/fail judgement. > These test requirements will have to come from the ATG. > > > > Thanks, > > Mitch > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org > [mailto:architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago > Macieira > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 3:58 PM > To: Mitch Kettrick > Cc: Richard Bardini; Dwarkaprasad Dayama; > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cert_wg at openconnectivity.org; 'Jacek > Hryszkiewicz'; architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org; '???' Subject: > [architecture_tg] Re: > [cert_wg] RE: CTT Gap status sharing request - IPv6 Updates > > > > It was not implemented yet. > > > > I haven't had time to work on the spec text CR, even though it should > be no more than a paragraph. I might have time next week to work on it. > > > > The code change may be more difficult, I haven't begun looking into that. > It's unlikely I'll be able to do much. > > > > > > > > From: architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org > [mailto:architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org] On Behalf Of ??? Sent: > Monday, December 05, 2016 3:46 PM > To: Mitch Kettrick; 'Thiago Macieira'; Richard Bardini; ???? > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; > architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org; > 'Jacek Hryszkiewicz'; cert_wg at openconnectivity.org Subject: > [architecture_tg] RE: Re: [dev] [cert_wg] RE: CTT Gap status sharing > request - IPv6 Updates > > > > Hi Mitch, > > Random delay has not been implemented in IoTivity1.2.1 yet because we > cannot delay the release to fix the PF schedule. > > As far as I know this is a kind of performance issue rather than > interoperability itself. Furthermore it is not easy to test this feature. > > Even it has been discussed during ATG, opensource perspective there is > no implementation yet, it is rational to exclude it from certification > scope I think. > > I expect it will be done from next IoTivity release but still not sure > we should check it for certification. Will we test it with probability > basis for randomness? > > BR, Uze Choi > > > > --------- Original Message --------- > Sender : Mitch Kettrick <cpm at openconnectivity.org> Date : 2016-12-06 > 08:21 (GMT+9) Title : Re: [dev] [cert_wg] RE: CTT Gap status sharing > request - IPv6 Updates > > Hi Thiago, Richard and Dwarka, > > > > Where do we stand on this? Was this ?random delay response? feature > implemented in IoTIvity v1.2.1? Was it discussed on today?s ATG call > to define the requirements from a spec perspective? > > > > This has not been implemented in the CTT yet because we?re waiting for > direction from the ATG/IoTivity. The goal was to get this into OIC > v1.1.x based on our discussions in Taipei? > > > > Thanks, > > Mitch > > > > From: cert_wg at openconnectivity.org > [mailto:cert_wg at openconnectivity.org] On Behalf Of Mark Trayer Sent: > Tuesday, November 22, 2016 8:26 AM > To: Mitch Kettrick; '??? (Uze Choi)'; '???'; 'Heldt-Sheller, Nathan'; > 'Richard Bardini'; 'Thiago Macieira'; JinHyeock Choe Cc: > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cert_wg at openconnectivity.org; 'Jacek > Hryszkiewicz' Subject: RE: [cert_wg] RE: CTT Gap status sharing > request - > IPv6 Updates > > > > Greetings, > > > > As per the minutes from the CTWG sessions at the F2F Richard owns the > action to close the loop with both Thiago and Dwarka on the necessary > editorial errata for the Core Spec and the corresponding code change > that would be needed. The understanding was that both would be part of a > future ?dot? > release of OIC 1.1. > > > > So waiting on the update from the action owner(s). > > > > Best, > > Mark. > > > > From: cert_wg at openconnectivity.org > [mailto:cert_wg at openconnectivity.org] On Behalf Of Mitch Kettrick > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 9:22 AM > To: '??? (Uze Choi)' <uzchoi at samsung.com>; '???' > <dongik.lee at samsung.com>; 'Heldt-Sheller, Nathan' <nathan.heldt-sheller at > intel.com>; 'Richard Bardini' > <richard.a.bardini at intel.com>; 'Thiago Macieira' > <thiago.macieira at intel.com>; JinHyeock Choe <jinchoe at samsung.com> Cc: > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cert_wg at openconnectivity.org; 'Jacek > Hryszkiewicz' <jacek.hryszkiewicz at comarch.com> Subject: [cert_wg] RE: > CTT Gap status sharing request - IPv6 Updates > > > > Hi Uze, > > > > The random delayed response was discussed at the F2F and I thought > that the goal was to have it in the next release of IoTivity which is > why Thiago worked on a proposal and presented it in Taipei. But I?m not 100% > cetain. > > > > Richard, Jin and Thiago, was the intent to try to get the ?IPv6 fixes? > in OIC v1.1 if possible or wait until OCF 1.0? > > > > Thanks, > > Mitch > > > > From: ??? (Uze Choi) [mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:02 AM > To: 'Mitch Kettrick'; '???'; 'Heldt-Sheller, Nathan'; 'Richard Bardini' > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cert_wg at openconnectivity.org; > 'Jacek Hryszkiewicz' Subject: RE: CTT Gap status sharing request > > > > Hi Mitch, > > - ?IPv4/IPv6 changes as discussed by Thiago? > > I figure out that one is link-local/site local scope extension and the > other is random delay response for multicast. > > First item has been already committed and the latter is not yet committed. > > However, they are not the scope of OIC1.1 and Certification with > CTT1.4, I think, which mean better to have in 1.2.1 release. > > If any concern about it, then let me know. > > BR, Uze Choi > > From: Mitch Kettrick [mailto:cpm at openconnectivity.org] > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 8:33 AM > To: '??? (Uze Choi)'; '???'; 'Heldt-Sheller, Nathan'; Richard Bardini > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cert_wg at openconnectivity.org; > Jacek Hryszkiewicz Subject: RE: CTT Gap status sharing request > > > > Hi Uze, > > > > I?ll let Nathan and/or Dongik provide specific details about any > Security-related issues if needed. Here is my understanding of where > we are right now: > > > > Items to be fixed on CTT v1.4 > > ? CT1.7.7.1 updated to append ACE with random UUID rather than adding > a ?*? ACE for /oic/p which already exists > > ? Update CT1.7.8.1 for Clients - CTT sends a GET to /oic/d which has > an ACE installed > > ? Update CT1.7.8.2 to allow any 4.xx error code (CTT now allows 4.01 > Unauthorized only) > > ? Update to align with Security CR46 which allows only doxm and pstat > to be accessed over CoAP rather than all SVRs. There is already an > IoTivity patch for this (#14137) > > > > Items still to be fixed on IoTivity v1.2-rel > > ? IPv4/IPv6 changes as discussed by Thiago > > ? NON block-wise transfer (current analysis indicates this is an > IoTivity issue ? email attached) > > ? Add Policy ?p? to any Collection as discussed by Joey from Intel > (email attached) > > > > Items to be added to the IoTivity Reference Device or still to be tested: > > ? Collections > > ? Run all sever-role test cases against a device that is primarily in > the Client role > > > > Core schema file changes (Richard) > > ? Update changes to OIC Link schema file as agreed at the F2F > > ? Update OIC Link schema file to address issues found by Comarch > (pull request 30) > > > > Thanks, > > Mitch > > > > From: ??? (Uze Choi) [mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 11:32 PM > To: ???; Heldt-Sheller, Nathan; Mitch Kettrick > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cert_wg at openconnectivity.org > Subject: CTT Gap status sharing request > > > > Hi Nathan/Dongik/Mitch > > > > As a main IoTivity/CTT developer, I?d like to ask you to share > IoTivity > 1.2.1 and CTT1.4 Gap. > > > > Items To be fixed on CTT 1.4 > > - aaa > > - bbb > > Items To be fixed on IoTivity 1.2-rel > > - ccc > > - ddd > > Interoperability Test status > > - the lastest testing event: IOTIVITY 1.2-rel (changeID: xxx), CTT > 1.3.kk > > - fail 1: aaa/ccc > > - fail 2: bbb/ddd > > > > Currently there are several pieces of mail, but too fragmented and detail. > > Following format or equivalent simple format will be helpful I think. > > > > BR, Uze Choi > > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > > > > > > > > > > <http://ext.samsung.net/mail/ext/v1/external/status/update?userid=uzch > oi&do > =bWFpbElEPTIwMTYxMjA1MjM0NTU5ZXBjbXMxcDIyYjQ4OTY4YWYxYTIxMzQ1ZGFmYWQyY > jIwODU > 0Nzg1ZSZyZWNpcGllbnRBZGRyZXNzPWFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZV90Z0BvcGVuY29ubmVjdGl2a > XR5Lm9 > yZw__> -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
