I can imagine a server could remember what port/IP it's been running on, and if a restart results in a different port or IP, it would announce via multicast its new port/IP, identifying itself with its guid.
OTOH, that's a major change. Also, the announcement could be lost, so the client would still need to be able to rediscover. John -----Original Message----- From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 10:53 AM To: cftg at openconnectivity.org; jjack.lee at samsung.com Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment Hello I've already answered, but I will repeat: We need an API in IoTivity to suggest which port number to use (a hint). A hint means that the code will do its best effort to achieve that, including ignore it. The IoTivity implementation should try to bind to that port; if it fails, it should try with port=0 so the OS will assign an arbitrary port. We need an API in IoTivity for the applicationto know which ports the stack is actually bound to, because it might be different from the hint. We do not need IANA-assigned port numbers. On quinta-feira, 21 de abril de 2016 02:00:15 PDT ??? wrote: > . > I tested on the several router-hub environment, no experience IP > changed in testing condition. You misunderstand my problem. > I don?t know, why we need to enforce the same IP after reboot. > I just want good solution in usual home router-hub condition. > I want solution to resolve my issue, but only discussion happen > without answer. > ------- Original Message ------- > Sender : Thiago Macieira<thiago.macieira at intel.com> > Date : 2016-04-21 00:26 (GMT+09:00) > Title : Re: [dev] [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment > > Before we discuss that, do you have a plan for enforcing that you get > the same IP address after reboot? > > On quarta-feira, 20 de abril de 2016 08:55:24 PDT ??? wrote: > > Hi, All. > > > > > > > > I'm IoTivity client developer for TV and SmartThings Hub. > > We find issue in our product verification phase about re-discovery > > problem. > > We should re-discovery step after target device reboot. This is very > > inconvenience user exprience. This issue is critical. and It makes > > hard to release our product. > > > > > > > > Our product needs assigned port number to reduce re-discovery problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > Sender : Thiago Macieira > > Date : 2016-04-19 15:20 (GMT+09:00) > > Title : Re: [dev] [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment > > > > > > > > That's an IoTivity problem. We chose not to provide this functionality. > > > > We can change our choice. We don't need an assigned port number to > > change our minds. > > > > Em ter?a-feira, 19 de abril de 2016, ?s 06:16:45 PDT, ??? escreveu: > > > IoTivity has already api for port setting. > > > However it diesnit work and we had long discussion for this api > > > fix with John Light before. For the implementation choice detail > > > please refer to my today reply mail to Ravi. BR Uze Choi > > > > > > > > > ---?? ???--- > > > ??? : Thiago Macieira/thiago.macieira at intel.com > > > ???? : 2016/04/19 14:59 (GMT+09:00) ?? : Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA > > > Port Number Assignment > > > > > > We add an API to IoTivity that informs the port numbers (plural, > > > since we need two) that the application would want the stack to > > > bind to and an API that informs which ports the stack bound to. > > > Applications that desire to use the same port number after a > > > reboot or a server shut down must record that port number > > > somewhere while the stack is in operation and will just inform it > > > again when it's starting up. Em ter?a-feira, 19 de abril de 2016, > > > ?s 05:23:55 PDT, ??? escreveu: > This proposal target the server > > > with single IoTivity stack. > I believe most of cases will be > > > matched with it. > > > > > > However, could you explain for port hint in detail? > BR, Uze Choi > > > > > > ---?? ???--- > ??? : Thiago Macieira/thiago.macieira at intel.com > > > > > > > ???? : > > > 2016/04/19 13:43 (GMT+09:00) > ?? : Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port > > > Number Assignment > > Hi Uze Note that having IANA-assigned port > > > numbers without a hinting system > is worse than the current > > > state. Upon device reboot, two processes could > race to bind to > > > the known ports, which means the port numbers could invert > from > > > boot to boot. So now a client that tried to reach the older > > > service > would find a responsive server but with a different > > > service. That would > result in an error to the requests. So we'd > > > need to implement the port hint > functionality I explained. But > > > if we do that, we don't need the assigned > port numbers from > > > IANA. Em ter?a-feira, > > > 19 de abril de 2016, ?s 04:35:49 > PDT, ??? escreveu: > Hi Dave, > > > > This proposal is not for hundreds percent > guarantee. > During we > > > develop the client application, we found that this > will lessen > > > the > rediscovery step after target device reboot. Regarding > > > > hint (I dont know > detail yet) I'm welcome to contribution also. > > > BR Uze > Choi > > > ---?? ???--- > ??? : > > > Dave > > > Thaler/dthaler at microsoft.com > ???? : > 2016/04/19 13:18 > > > (GMT+09:00) > ?? > > > > > > RE: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number > Assignment > > We should > > > not have an IANA assigned port (at least for any > reason we know > > > of > now). If a device reboots, you can?t assume the IP > address > > > is necessarily > the same, let alone the port number, so the peer > > > > must be prepared to > rediscover it from a persistent stable id > > > other than > the IP/port. > An app asking to reuse the same port > > > number as last boot is > fine, as long as > > > > > > > it?s just a hint used for optimization, an app should > not rely > > > > on it > > > > > > being > granted. > Dave > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org > > > > [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org] On Behalf > Of ??? Sent: > > > Monday, April > > > > > > 18, 2016 9:13 PM > To: thiago.macieira at intel.com; > > > cftg at openconnectivity.org > > > > > > > > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; > > > > > ravi.subramaniam at intel.com; > > > > > > > > michael.koster at smartthings.com Subject: Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF > > > IANA Port > > > > > > > > > > > Number Assignment > > Hi Thiago, > Regarding hint I cannot > > > > assume clearly however, if you think about the port > > > > > designation api, it has some issue as I explained in mail for > > > > answer to > Ravi just little before. > > > > > > Originally > iotivity had a logic assigning the > specific port > > > before, we figure out > that this port is already registered in > > > > IANA with different purpose. This > is the reason why we change > > > the logic > into random port number assignment. > BR Uze Choi > > > > > > ---?? ???--- > ??? : Thiago > Macieira/thiago.macieira at intel.com > > > > ???? : 2016/04/19 12:02 (GMT+09:00) > > > > > > > > > > > ?? : Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment > > We don't > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > > reserved port numbers with IANA for that. As I said before, > any > > > number is > > > > > > > fine if the implementation can remember which one it had > last. > > > > We can > > > > > > add > the API to IoTivity for the implementation to provide a > > > > hint on which > port number to use. This assumes that the API can > > > store the > port number > it last had. As a hint, if the port > > > number isn't available, the > > > > > > > > > > > implementation will just choose another. Em ter?a-feira, 19 de > > > > abril de > > > > > > > > 2016, ?s 02:54:42 PDT, ??? escreveu: > Hi Thiago, > I assume > > > > DHCP will > > > > > > work > > most of cases currently. > This proposal does not intend > > > to cover every > > case but just maximize the hit > ratio. BR Uze > > > Choi > > > ---?? > > > ???--- > > > ??? : Thiago Macieira/thiago.macieira at intel.com > ???? : > > > 2016/04/19 11:44 > > (GMT+09:00) > ?? : Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA > > > Port Number Assignment > > Hi > > Uze > > I don't see how > > > reserving port numbers will help us in that > > scenario. > > If a > > > device is able to keep its IP address and port number, > > then we > > > don't > need reserved port numbers: > > > any number is fine. If a device > > isn't able to > keep the > > > address or the port number, then rediscovery is > > necessary and > > > any > port number is also fine. > > I'll also claim that > > > > > having a finite range is harmful because it limits us > to a > > > certain number > > of instances running on a given IP address. > > > > > Moreover, please note > that > IPv6 with privacy extensions > > > enabled, it's very > likely that the > device's > IP address will > > > change after a reboot (it's > possible to retain > the > > > > information and resume using a random IP if it's > still valid > > > after > a > reboot, but it's not required. Linux doesn't implement > > > > that, for > > example). > > > With > > > IPv4, it's even worse since the decision is taken > out of > > the > > > device's hands completely and relies on the DHCP server > > > > provisioning > > with the same address. > > Em ter?a-feira, 19 de > > > abril de 2016, ?s > 02:06:40 > PDT, ??? escreveu: > > Currently > > > IoTivity use random number, but > this logic > > > > > > > causes issue from > > client application , which eventually > > > > requires > finding the server device > > again when target reboot. > > > As far > as I > remember Thiago also understood this > > > > > requirement before. > Discussion was > not for undiscoverable > > > service. > > > > > > ---?? ???--- > > > ??? > > > : > > > Thiago > Macieira/thiago.macieira at intel.com > > ???? : 2016/04/19 > > > > > > > 00:38 > > > (GMT+09:00) > > > ?? : Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number > > > Assignment > > > > > > > > > > > > > IoTivity > decided to use random port numbers and there has > > > > > been no > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion to > change that. The port number is assigned by the > > > > OS from > > > > > > any > > of the non- > privileged unused port numbers at the time > > > the > application > > starts. > > > > > We had an inconclusive > > > discussion about > > > > > > port number for services that > > > aren't discoverable, but > > > instead are > > > > > > > well-known, like cloud services. > > > That discussion didn't > > > finish, so > > > > > > > there are no conclusions yet. > > > > But > for now, we don't need > > > assigned > > > > > > > port numbers. > > > > Em segunda-feira, 18 > de abril de 2016, > > > > ?s > > > > > > 16:12:27 > PDT, ???(Uze Choi) > > > > escreveu: > > > Hi > Ravi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I got it, this could be IoTivity specific > > > > > > > > > > > > issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During reboot the device. most of case, IP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will be > > > > > > same in the > local > > > network. > > > > > > For the same port, > > > > there are two > approaches. > > > > > > > > > > > > One, is to > > > store the > previously > assigned port. > > > > > > The other is > > > to use registered port. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IoTivity have > > > decided to use the registered port > for > several reasons. > > > > > > (second option) > > > > > > > > > > > > In this case I?m not > > sure to define the port name with ocf > > > naming. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR, > > Uze Choi > > > > > > From: > > > cftg at openconnectivity.org > > [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org] > > > On > > > > > > > > > Behalf Of Subramaniam, Ravi > > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 3:38 > > > PM > > > > > > > > > To: uzchoi at samsung.com; 'Michael > > Koster'; 'Aja Murray'; > > > > > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; > > cftg at openconnectivity.org > > > Subject: > RE: > > > > > > [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port > > Number Assignment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Uze, > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > recognize that each stack > > > > for > > > > > > multiple instances may require an > > > > > individual port (each > > > instance does not always need to have individual > > > > > port > > > but let?s assume they do). I don?t understand why these need to be > > > > > > > > registered ports. Also what happens in a situation where > > > there are > more > > > > than the 5 instances (wouldn?t we have > > > issues because we would > have > run > > > > > > > > > > > > out of reserved ports?) > > > > > > > > > > > > From what > I > > > > can > > > > > > > understand from reading the thread is that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a) There > are multiple stacks on a device ? each stack has its > > > own IP > > > > > > > > > > > > address > and port. > > > > > > b) The URIs are tied to the IP > > > > address/port. > > > > > > > c) So when the stack reboots and gets > > > a new IP > > > > > > > address, the URI that > the > > > Client has does not work > > > > because the > > > > > > > > > > > client has the URI > associated with > > > the > > > older IP > > > address. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > d) So the > Client has to do resource discovery again > > > > > > > > and this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > causes all > > > the OIC > Devices to respond and Client has to > > > process all > > > > > > > the responses > > > to > > > > get the new URIs for this Client. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did I > understand the issue correctly? If this > > > > > > > > > > > > is the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > objective then > > > there > > > > may be other ways to solve this > > > ?same > > > > > > > objective?. If I have > > > > misunderstood, > > > could you try > > > explaining > > > > > > > again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ravi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: > > > > > > > cftg at openconnectivity.org > [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org] On > > > > > > > > > > > > > Behalf Of ???(Uze Choi) Sent: > Sunday, April 17, 2016 11:17 PM > > > > > > > > > To: > > > > > > Subramaniam, Ravi ; 'Michael > Koster' > > > ; 'Aja Murray' ; > > > > > > > > > > > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; > cftg at openconnectivity.org > > > Subject: RE: > > > > > > [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port > Number Assignment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > Ravi > > > > > > Could you > clarify your declaration of > > > ?same objective?? > > > > > > > This is proposed > for multiple > > > IoTivity instance(stack)s in a > single > > > device. > > > Each > > > > stack needs to assign individual port. > > > > > > > BR, Uze Choi > > > > > > > > > > From: > > > cftg at openconnectivity.org > [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org] On > > > > > > > > > > > > > Behalf Of Subramaniam, Ravi > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 3:08 PM > > > > > > > > > To: > uzchoi at samsung.com; > 'Michael Koster'; 'Aja Murray'; > > > > > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; > cftg at openconnectivity.org Cc: > > > '???'; > > > > > > > > > > > > '??'; > > > '????'; '???'; > '???'; '???'; '???'; > > > > > rami.jung at samsung.com > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: > > > [cftg] RE: > OCF IANA Port Number Assignment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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:cftg at openconnectivity.org] On > > > > > Behalf Of ???(Uze > > > Choi) > > > Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:46 PM > > > To: > > 'Michael > > > Koster' ; 'Aja Murray' > > > ; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; > > > > > > > > cftg at openconnectivity.org Cc: '???' ; '??' > > > ; '????' > > > ; '???' > > > > > > > > > > > > > ; '???' ; '???' > > > ; '???' ; > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > 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:michael.koster at smartthings.com] > > > > 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 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: > admin at openinterconnect.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Aja > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Michael > > > Koster [ > > > > > > > > > > mailto:michael.koster at smartthings.com] Sent: Saturday, > > > > > > > February 27, > > > > > > 2016 > > > > > 5:25 PM > > > To: uzchoi at samsung.com > > > 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>; Aja Murray < > > > > > > > > > amurray at vtmgroup.com>; ??? > > > > > > < > > > > > soohong.park 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, > ??? < > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > 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) < > > > > > > > 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] Sent: > Tuesday, > > > February 23, > > > 2016 8:50 PM > > > > To: ' jinchoe at samsung.com'; ' > > > > > > > michael.koster at smartthings.com' > > > > Cc: > > > ASHOKBABU CHANNA > > > ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > ashok.channa at samsung.com); > > > > markus.jung at samsung.com; ??? > > > > ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > junghyun.oh 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] > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 7:45 PM > > > > > To: ???; > > > > > > > > > > > > > michael.koster at smartthings.com Subject: Introducing > > Uze Choi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me > > introduce > > > > > > > > > > my > > > > > > colleague Uze Choi > > > > > > > > > > > > Uze Choi > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <~WRD174.jpg> > > > > -- > > Thiago > Macieira - thiago.macieira > > > (AT) > intel.com > > Software Architect - Intel > Open Source > > > Technology Center > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira > (AT) intel.com > > > > > > Software > > > > > > Architect > - Intel Open Source Technology Center > -- Thiago > > > Macieira - thiago.macieira > (AT) intel.com Software Architect - > > > > Intel Open Source Technology Center -- Thiago Macieira - > > > thiago.macieira > (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open > > > Source Technology Center -- Thiago Macieira > > > - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open > > > Source Technology Center > > > > -- > > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > > > > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > > > _______________________________________________ > > iotivity-dev mailing list > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
