>From Security perspective, code accept or rejection should be decided by >security project maintainer, I think. Anyway, I feel that explanation from the feature contributor to be required in public.
BR, Uze Choi -----Original Message----- From: Thiago Macieira [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 4:22 PM To: ???(Uze Choi) Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] [Action Request] RE: Request to revert the merged patches(#11227, #10743) On ter?a-feira, 20 de setembro de 2016 16:04:57 PDT ???(Uze Choi) wrote: > One of the goal of Iotivity also is OCF compliant code. > Moreover, OCF BoD decision has been done by technical consideration. The point is that IoTivity is not aware of what the decision is. I personally have no idea what security consideration you're talking about. So I could not write the change or review it. If I saw the change by someone else, I'd grade it according to its technical merits. And if it is a flawed security implementation, it should get rejected from IoTivity, regardless of what the OCF BoD says. IoTivity reserves itself the right to deviate from any OCF feature it considers flawed. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
