On ter?a-feira, 20 de setembro de 2016 00:21:57 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote: > 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.
To clarify: what I meant by the above is that we need technical more information in order to make a decision. This was not meant to say we should oppose a decision because of who made it (it is actually against the IoTivity governance to do so). Sorry I picked on the specific case of a security issue. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
