Here is the specific answer to number 3 copied from the bottom of this long
thread.
> 3) Are you talking about IP-over-Bluetooth support when you say BT/BLE
> support? Or are you talking about OIC profile over Bluetooth? If you meant
> the latter, I don't see how we can get it ready in 3 weeks since the
> research to implement that is still ongoing.
> -> I meant OIC profile over Bluetooth. Strange about your comment because
> BT/BLE was in CA branch as a pre-release since 0.9.0. I'll check this out.
I might be mistaken, but I thought someone on Bernie's team was researching
it.
But are you sure CA does OIC-profile-over-BT, not IP-over-Bluetooth?
-> [June] For 0.9.1 release, BT/BLE support in CA branch is not definitely
related to IP.
BTW, what do you mean by IP-over-Bluetooth exactly? Is Intel working on
IPv4 over BT? or Bluetooth4.2 IPSP?
<bnk> OIC Profile over GATT for Android and Tizen is in the code base for
Connectivity Abstraction. Because there was not a specification written for the
Profile and we felt there were improvements that could be made to the
implementation (also developing a GATT server for Linux was not possible before
BlueZ 5.29) we drafted a proposed specification for the profile and will be
sharing it Thursday PM PDT and would like feedback from the OSWG. We are
developing the Profile Client and Server for Linux based on this specification
and believe the code can be done at the end of April. This will mean that to
achieve interoperability there will be changes required in the existing BT-LE
code for Tizen and Android.
<bnk> yes, as reported in the face-to-face meeting and shared on the IoTivity
reflector we are working on enabling the CA with IPv6 and that includes support
for Bluetooth 4.2 IPSP profile. This is work in process and not a candidate for
R 0.9.1
Thanks
Bernie
From: ??? <juney at samsung.com<mailto:[email protected]>>
Reply-To: "juney at samsung.com<mailto:juney at samsung.com>" <juney at
samsung.com<mailto:juney at samsung.com>>
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 3:21 AM
To: "Macieira, Thiago" <thiago.macieira at intel.com<mailto:thiago.macieira at
intel.com>>, ??? <juney at samsung.com<mailto:juney at samsung.com>>,
"iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org>"
<iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org>>
Subject: Re: [dev] [Request for feedback] IoTivity 0.9.1 Release Schedule &
Feature
Thiago,
Please find my answer in blue.
Regards
June
June Yong Young
Principal Engineer
IoT Solution Lab. | Web & Convergence Team
Software R&D Center, Samsung Electronics Co.,Ltd.
T: +82-31-301-6107, M: +82-10-9530-6107
E-mail :juney at samsung.com<mailto:juney at samsung.com>
------- Original Message -------
Sender : Thiago Macieira<thiago.macieira at intel.com<mailto:thiago.macieira at
intel.com>>
Date : 2015-03-23 13:38 (GMT+09:00)
Title : Re: [dev] [Request for feedback] IoTivity 0.9.1 Release Schedule &
Feature
On Monday 23 March 2015 03:50:07 ??? wrote:
> > This is the announcement for IoTivity 0.9.1 release schedule in April.
> > (IoTivity 1.0.0 is to be released as full compliant of the Spec in around
> > Sep./Oct. timeframe according the direction of BoD.) _Please let us know
> > your opinion about the schedule and confirm the features to be applied in
> > April release._
>
> Hi June
>
> Would you mind creating a wiki page with the the release criteria that you
> have in your presentation?
> -> Sure, I'll do that after the discussion will be finalized between Intel &
> Samsung. Actually it is still being discussed in between 2 QA teams.
Thanks!
The QA teams should also post their conclusions to the mailing list. It would
be especially helpful if they create a wiki page describing how they will
work, if there's any division of tasks, etc.
> It would also be a good idea to make sure all entries in your spreadsheet
> exist in JIRA, so we track them live in the bug tracker. Attachments to
> email can't be updated. The sheet "Platform support" also needs a glossary
> -- I think I can guess what CA, TM and NM are, but I'm at loss over PPM and
> SSM. -> PPM is protocol plug-in manager, SSM is Soft Sensor manager.
> I think your suggestiion is good idea, but if feature list is too many,
> it may be difficult for me to upload all of the list one by one in JIRA. It
> is better to upload the feature has an issue only.
Sorry, I disagree. We have to start somewhere. If we don't start now, we will
always be in the position that the spreadsheet is too big. We should try and
always *reduce* the spreadsheet until we no longer need it.
I recommend you & George (Planning) start with the big features, the ones we
really want in the release. The rest can be left for later.
> Was the bottom part of your email a copy & paste from the spreadsheet? The
> mailing list destroyed all formatting, so no one can read it.
> -> Oh it has been corrupt? It has been just copy&paste from spreadsheet
> anynow, so you can see in the spreadsheet.
The mailing list drops the HTML formatting. Anything you pasted that required
tables, colours, bold/italic, etc., is lost by the time others receive it.
-> [June] Can I ask you something? Some mails through mailing list doesn't drop
HTML formatting, but some email become corrupt.
Do you perhaps know why? Droping HTML formatting is too inconvient.
> 1) for this plan to hold, when is the latest that CA BRANCH can be merged
> into the master branch? Shall we say one week before QA entry? That means
> that if we get to March 30 and CA isn't merged yet, the plan will need
> revising.
> -> This is somewhat different from what I've been told. It is
> targetting end of March and I'll check.
I made an educated assumption: CA branch, as big as it is, will require one
week of stabilisation in the main branch before we even consider starting the
QA work and feature freeze. I might be wrong, and it might be that you
consider that part of the work QA's job.
My point is was to ask when said date is. When is the last moment that CA can
be merged for your plan to hold?
-> [June] I think 3/30 can be last day in order to release to QA.
> 2) the same question applies to all of the other features: when is the
> feature freeze date? Follow-up question: are we doing a feature-based
> release or a time-based release?
> -> CA is definitely feature-based because this is a kind of the purpose of
> this release. But the rest of the features can be time-based.
-> [June] One thing important is missing. 0.9.1 should be released as vA
Compliant pre-release,
so vA compliant has to be checked. If there are too many gaps against
vA, then I cannot release 0.9.1
Thanks!
But when is feature freeze? The date of QA entry?
-> [June] I'm proposing the date of QA entry is 4/6 at present, but I haven't
received a feedback from George yet.
> 3) Are you talking about IP-over-Bluetooth support when you say BT/BLE
> support? Or are you talking about OIC profile over Bluetooth? If you meant
> the latter, I don't see how we can get it ready in 3 weeks since the
> research to implement that is still ongoing.
> -> I meant OIC profile over Bluetooth. Strange about your comment because
> BT/BLE was in CA branch as a pre-release since 0.9.0. I'll check this out.
I might be mistaken, but I thought someone on Bernie's team was researching
it.
But are you sure CA does OIC-profile-over-BT, not IP-over-Bluetooth?
-> [June] For 0.9.1 release, BT/BLE support in CA branch is not definitely
related to IP.
BTW, what do you mean by IP-over-Bluetooth exactly? Is Intel working on
IPv4 over BT? or Bluetooth4.2 IPSP?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
[cid:2OJWTEACQZUW at namo.co.kr]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 201503241921432_Z1SFOC32.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 13168 bytes
Desc: 201503241921432_Z1SFOC32.gif
URL:
<http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20150325/98cab2e4/attachment.gif>
