On Wednesday 23 September 2015 12:37:39 Lankswert, Patrick wrote: > Thiago, > > One of my obligations is to deliver a specification compliant stack. The > routing manager is not based on any standard that I am aware of. We are > free to add anything to iotivity, but to meet the standards-based > obligation, I need to be able to build a version of the core framework that > adheres to the standard. Adding non-standard options from within the stack > is a problem.
Having extra options in the header does not mean non-compliant design. The extra header means that the endpoint client could accept replies from a routing manager, but if no one deploys routing managers, nothing happens in addition to the spec-mandated behaviour. > In the design discussions, it was said expressly that the routing manager > features would be optional. So, what was promised was not delivered. It is optional. It just happens to be a runtime decision, not a compile-time one. And the extra header option notwithstanding. > It looks like a number of new issues in the stack are a result of the > routing manager feature which was not a required feature, but now threatens > the delivery of v1.0. That's a separate aspect -- the fact that there is new code that destabilised the core. For that matter, I have to ask: why do we have so many non-spec features being developed while we're short on resources to implement the spec ones? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
