On Thursday 22 January 2015 11:20:35 you wrote:
> Hi Thiago,
>
> Please refer to my comments below.
Hi June and others
Note: I've trimmed the Cc list and moved everyone to BCC. If you haven't
subscribed to iotivity-dev, you won't get replies. Subscribe now, please. If
you have problems subscribed, please mail me directly and I'll help you.
> > The email that Soonhwang forwarded to the dev mailing list appears to
> > contain a feature list. Has that feature list been documented in the
> > IoTivity JIRA? If not, can I ask that we begin doing that, especially for
> > work that is not complete?
>
> -> [June] If you mean that we should put the feature list to be completed
> for IoTivity 1.0 and see the progress of the implementation, then that
> looks a good idea. I'll do that after ISG meeting to confirm IoTivity 1.0
> criteria. But, I think I haven't received yet the confirmation
> regarding the feature list to be added on 1.0 from each member
> company.(Intel, MediaTek) BTW, I'm not able to find the feature list in
> SoonHwang's email that you mentioned. Could you forward it to me, so that I
> can confirm what you said?
The list was in an attachment to this email:
http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/2015-January/000062.html
But that's not what I meant. Yes, we should use JIRA to track the status of
every feature we'd like to have.
I am asking for the list of *proposed* features to be put on JIRA, so we can
collectively look at them and decide what we'd like to have for 1.0. This will
also allow contributors who aren't IoTivity members to propose items and send
feedback on what we propose.
I'm not sure what's on the agenda for the ISG meeting, but I'd like the
developers to discuss the feature list among themselves before it gets
presented to the ISG for ratification. Since there is no candidate feature list
in JIRA yet, I don't think there's enough time for this by next week's
meeting.
At this point, the ISG should give its guidance on the broad strokes, like
"needs spec compliance", "needs to run on Android", "needs to support
encryption", "needs IPv6 support", etc. The details of how we go about that
should be left to the people actually doing the work and the ISG may ratify
that or request course-corrections.
> > One thing I'm missing from the list in the email is OIC spec compliance.
> > From the discussions we began last year, it seemed that this would be a
> > 1.0
> > must- have requirement. Was this simply implied and thus not discussed?
> > Or is there now a proposal to release 1.0 before the spec is done? If this
> > is the case, then how do we plan on handling any spec differences that
> > impact compatibility? George wrote "v1.1.x ? v1.9.x should all be backward
> > compatible with v1.0.0" and I agree: compatibility breaks should happen
> > either before the 1.0 release, or when the major number changes.
>
> -> [June] The last email that I sent includes my opinion for the conformance
> test stuff below. This issue will be discussed in ISG meeting.
> ?Spec v1.0 is expected to be finalized in end of Feb. not including IPR
> review completed
> ?V1.0 Test spec plan has to be scheduled
> ?STD CTG plans to develop v1.0 test spec in Oct. ?15.
> ?IoTivity QA cannot run conformance test on IoTivity v1.0.0, but is only to
> check feature list (TBD)
Thanks. We've discussed compliance vs non-compliance for some time and haven't
reached a consensus. The ISG will have to make a decision on it.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
