Hi Michael,
Let me extend the discussion channel into Core TG and IoTivity. This sounds related with specification also. Michael, I understand why we separate the port for secure and non-secure channel. However, we need to avoid the consecutive port number from non-secure port to secure port as follows. >From IoTivity start, stack will internally assign the port number by +1 >increasing if port is already occupied. So that port 4380 is already occupied in the non-secure mode, then stack will assign the port 4381 which will cause conflict with port ?4381 UDP - ocf-coaps-1? Please update the final port proposal. Proposal port 4380 UDP - ocf-coap-1 port 4380 TCP - ocf-coap-1 port 4381 UDP - ocf-coap-2 port 4381 TCP - ocf-coap-2 port 7380 UDP - ocf-coaps-1 (7380 is arbitrary number, please assign appropriate one.) port 7380 TCP - ocf-coaps-1 port 7381 UDP - ocf-coaps-2 port 7381 TCP - ocf-coaps-2 (more..port). ?We may need to justify why we need so many ports.? ? Should we describe why this is required? Ashok, I?ll create on the issue on Jira once port proposal is updated from Michael. Please handle it. >From the CA stack please check whether it is possible to assign the port >incrementally with separation between secure port and non-secure port. BR, Uze Choi From: Michael Koster [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 7:50 AM To: Aja Murray Cc: ???; ??; ????; ???; ???; ???; ???; uzchoi at samsung.com Subject: Re: Introducing Uze Choi - IANA Port Number Assignment Thanks! There are no legal obligations and there is no cost. We should get consensus on what we want to do, so it would be great if OSWG and SWG agree on the registration. I guess my question is if we really need 5 ports for the same service. IESG makes it clear that IP endpoints are expected to multiplex users of a service on a port. I understand we want multiple service *instances* and each to have it's own port. I would think we would allocate one non-secure port for testing but mostly would need secure ports. I would propose to reserve one port each TCP and UDP for non-secure coap, and the other ports for secure coaps on both UDP and TCP. By doing this we are actually requesting up to 10 ports and submitting 10 forms. We may need to justify why we need so many ports. So specifically: port 4380 UDP - ocf-coap port 4380 TCP - ocf-coap port 4381 UDP - ocf-coaps-1 port 4381 TCP - ocf-coaps-1 port 4382 UDP - ocf-coaps-2 port 4382 TCP - ocf-coaps-2 (and of we need more) port 4383 UDP - ocf-coaps-3 port 4383 TCP - ocf-coaps-3 port 4384 UDP - ocf-coaps-4 port 4384 TCP - ocf-coaps-4 Is this what is intended? Do we need to make a request to review this? Michael On Feb 29, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Aja Murray <amurray at vtmgroup.com> wrote: Hi Michael, I would still like to know if there is any cost or legal implications for reserving these port numbers, and if we need OSWG and/or SWG approval before deciding on them. When the time comes, here is the address information you requested for OCF: Mailing Address: 3855 SW 153rd Drive, Beaverton, OR 97003, USA Email: <mailto:admin at openinterconnect.org> admin at openinterconnect.org Regards, Aja From: Michael Koster [ <mailto:michael.koster at smartthings.com> mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 5:25 PM To: <mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com> uzchoi at samsung.com Cc: ??? < <mailto:jinchoe at samsung.com> jinchoe at samsung.com>; ?? < <mailto:ashok.channa at samsung.com> ashok.channa at samsung.com>; ???? < <mailto:markus.jung at samsung.com> markus.jung at samsung.com>; ??? < <mailto:junghyun.oh at samsung.com> junghyun.oh at samsung.com>; ??? < <mailto:jjack.lee at samsung.com> jjack.lee at samsung.com>; Aja Murray < <mailto:amurray at vtmgroup.com> amurray at vtmgroup.com>; ??? < <mailto:soohong.park at samsung.com> soohong.park at samsung.com>; ??? < <mailto:jinguk.jeong at samsung.com> jinguk.jeong at samsung.com> Subject: Re: Introducing Uze Choi - IANA Port Number Assignment OK, I have a couple of questions before I fill out the requests. I can make the OCF organization the assignee, and I can be the contact. I just need an address and email for OCF. There are no contiguous blocks of unassigned port numbers below 4380-4388. Does it matter what the port numbers are? Also, IANA won't assign a block of ports, each port needs to have a service name. Why 5 ports? How should we construct the service names? I assume they are instances of the same OCF CoAP service, so is it simply ocf-coap-instance-1, ocf-coap-instance-2, etc? Are multiple devices distinguished by the device ID? If the URIs are discinct between devices, do we need more than one port? Ports are now assigned for use by one or more transport protocols. Will we need to assign TCP use of these ports as well? Do we need non-secure ports in this new range? Michael On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:26 PM, ??? < <mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com> uzchoi at samsung.com> wrote: Is it standard stuff or open source stuff otherwise common stuff? Daniel and Jin any opinion? BR Uze Choi ---?? ???--- ??? : Michael <mailto:Koster/michael.koster at smartthings.com> Koster/michael.koster at smartthings.com ???? : 2016/02/24 22:57 (GMT+09:00) ?? : Re: Introducing Uze Choi We will require an assignee and a contact for these. I can be the contact, to answer questions from IANA and track the process. However, the assignee should probably be a persistent administrative role at OCF. Aja, who should be the OCF assignee when we register identifiers like port numbers and content formats with bodies like IANA and IETF? Thanks, Michael On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:39 AM, Michael Koster < <mailto:michael.koster at smartthings.com> michael.koster at smartthings.com> wrote: Hi Uze, Sorry, I was checking into some procedural questions. It will require a separate application for each port and there is a review process. I will start the process today. Best regards, Michael On Feb 24, 2016, at 2:07 AM, ??????(Uze Choi) < <mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com> uzchoi at samsung.com> wrote: Michael, We should finalize the code by this week for this upcoming IoTivity release. Could you check it ASAP if possible? BR, Uze Choi From: ???(Uze Choi) [ <mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com> mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:50 PM To: ' <mailto:jinchoe at samsung.com> jinchoe at samsung.com'; ' <mailto:michael.koster at smartthings.com> michael.koster at smartthings.com' Cc: ASHOKBABU CHANNA ( <mailto:ashok.channa at samsung.com> ashok.channa at samsung.com); <mailto:markus.jung at samsung.com> markus.jung at samsung.com; ??? ( <mailto:junghyun.oh at samsung.com> junghyun.oh at samsung.com); ???( <mailto:jjack.lee at samsung.com> jjack.lee at samsung.com) Subject: RE: Introducing Uze Choi Hi Michael, As Jin explained, I need to register the port region for UDP unicast port for OIC(IoTivity) Server as follows. There are some requirement for port assignment for OIC communication to IANA. As a UDP multicast socket, IoTivity uses Port 5683 which is CoAP default port registered in IANA, and for unicast socket, OIC stack(IoTivity) randomly assign the port from the system currently. Sometime, single device can launch multiple OIC instances which requires multiple unicast sockets assignment. (multicast socket is shared commonly) However, this random port assignment policy makes the OIC client re-discover whenever OIC server restart, which is very cumbersome task. I propose the default UDP unicast port for OIC for example 3333~3337, OIC server assign the port from 3333 always. I heard that you are the person to know how to register the port into IANA and understand the related context. Could you help me for this task? BR, Uze Choi From: ??? [ <mailto:jinchoe at samsung.com> mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 7:45 PM To: ???; <mailto:michael.koster at smartthings.com> michael.koster at smartthings.com Subject: Introducing Uze Choi Michael Let me introduce my colleague Uze Choi Uze Choi <mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com> uzchoi at samsung.com who belongs to SWG (Software Center) & is a (?THE) core member of Samsung IoTivity activity. He contacted me with an issue & I recommended to contact you in turn. In short he has in mind allocating certain UDP port numbers (maybe 5) for exclusive CoAP or OIC usage because of the following. One physical platform may have multiple (logical) OIC devices (i.e. IoTivity instance), then for unicast CoAP message, a way for URI to differentiate each instance is required. Right now IoTivity uses different port number for different instance but due to dynamic nature of port number assignment, upon rebooting, sender may forget the receiver's port number & have to find it again. It would help to assign a certain block of UPD port number for such usage. We may ask IANA to allocate 5 UPD port numbers exclusively for CoAP or OIC usage. I recommended Uze Choi to ask you, Samsung IETF expert, whether the approach is feasible & if so, how to proceed in IETF & IANA. He will send you a mail with more detail. Thanks in advance for your kind consideration. best regards JinHyeock <image001.jpg> <~WRD174.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- HTML ?????? ??????????????... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20160418/c2ce9d89/attachment.html>
