Hi Uze, Shouldn?t we explore other ways of achieving the same objective? I may need to understand the details better .. but this multiple reserved ports use seems rather heavy.
The idea of using only fixed Device ID in the URI as in the OIC URI and resolving to endpoints in the transport layer was meant to solve this very problem (multiple OIC Devices or stack instances on a single platform). In addition, for the case where there are multiple OIC Device from a single IP/port, the device ID in the URI is used to select the right OIC Device. Ravi From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ???(Uze Choi) Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:46 PM To: 'Michael Koster' <michael.koster at smartthings.com>; 'Aja Murray' <amurray at vtmgroup.com>; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cftg at openconnectivity.org Cc: '???' <jinchoe at samsung.com>; '??' <ashok.channa at samsung.com>; '????' <markus.jung at samsung.com>; '???' <junghyun.oh at samsung.com>; '???' <jjack.lee at samsung.com>; '???' <soohong.park at samsung.com>; '???' <jinguk.jeong at samsung.com>; rami.jung at samsung.com Subject: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment 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.
