I don't really have an idea for an implicit hint, I'm not sure there is anything that properly matches. ?I like John Light's suggestions to use the last used one if possible, but that does require storage of some sort.
Otherwise we probably just need to pick one. On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 14:22 +0900, ???(Uze Choi) wrote: > For discovery multicast we are using 5683 registerd IANA coap??port. > For unicast we are using randomly generated port. > > Implicitly hint should be based on some idea or consensus. What do > you propose? Is it also from randomly generated port? > > BR, Uze Choi > -----Original Message----- > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org] On > Behalf Of Keane, Erich > Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:35 AM > To: Macieira, Thiago; ashok.channa at samsung.com; uzchoi at samsung.com; d > thaler at microsoft.com; Jacob_Gladish at cable.comcast.com; cftg at openconne > ctivity.org > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: [cftg] Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: > OCF IANA Port Number Assignment > > The alternative to #2 is that we make NO connection in some cases.??I > would think that hinting is a great idea, but it NEEDS to have some > sort of fallback in case the port requested is already occupied. > > In the case of a 'default' port, it would be no different from user- > hinted port, except that the user didn't provide it!??Nothing really > would have to be done as far as IANA registration, though having one > put aside for us would be nice. > > That said, what is the registration status of the Discovery Port???We > use the CoAP discovery port, right? > > On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 12:02 +0900, ???(Uze Choi) wrote: > > Erich, > > > > Hinting explicitly with port and if fail then increase port number > > is > > problematic due to two reason. > > ?1. As maintainer of this layer commented, specifying the port is > > against from connectivity agnostic and abstraction concept from API > > perspective. > > ?2. User intend to occupy the specific number of port. But stack > > internally increase it. This is non-deterministic API which allows > > unexpected result. > > > > The default hinting with 'specific port' looks good idea. > > : I think this is same to what I have requested until now. But > > default port occupation, what is required without IANA > > registration? > > > > BR, Uze Choi > > -----Original Message----- > > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev- > > bo > > unces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Keane, Erich > > Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:31 AM > > To: ashok.channa at samsung.com; Jacob_Gladish at cable.comcast.com; > > dthale > > r at microsoft.com; cftg at openconnectivity.org; Macieira, Thiago > > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; wovander at cisco.com > > Subject: Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF > > IANA > > Port Number Assignment > > > > The hinting mechanism is that the initialization function in > > IoTivity > > takes a 'suggested port number'??as a parameter.??The stack will > > then > > attempt to use that one first.??If the port is already taken (or > > the > > OS > > won't issue it for some reason), the stack will try the next one, > > and > > continue the process. > > > > The common reason for registering an IANA port is so that OTHER > > applications will know where to find you.??SO, you register 80, so > > that > > there is a proper default any time someone wants to connect to your > > server via http unsolicited. > > > > The reason (IMO) that we do not NEED an IANA port registered, is > > that > > the unsolicited connections never happen.??All connections are > > preceded > > by a discovery request, and responses to said discovery results in > > the > > port being known. > > > > On the other hand, if we made the default (hinting '0') a specific > > port, it might be useful to HAVE it registered so that we don't > > unintentionally step on someone else's registered port. > > > > On Tue, 2016-04-26 at 12:52 +0000, Gladish, Jacob wrote: > > > Can someone elaborate on what a "hinting mechanism" is? If > > > there's > > > an > > > API that allows me to configure locally used interfaces and > > > ports, > > > I > > > would expect those to be used or get an error. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity- > > > dev- > > > bo > > > unces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Dave Thaler > > > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 9:49 PM > > > To: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>; cftg at openconnect > > > iv > > > it > > > y.org; ashok.channa at samsung.com > > > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Wouter van der Beek > > > (wovander) > > > < > > > wovander at cisco.com> > > > Subject: Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF > > > IANA > > > Port Number Assignment > > > > > > I agree with Thiago here. > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.o > > > > rg > > > > ] > > > > On? > > > > Behalf Of Thiago Macieira > > > > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 8:51 AM > > > > To: cftg at openconnectivity.org; ashok.channa at samsung.com > > > > Cc: Wouter van der Beek (wovander) <wovander at cisco.com>; Uze > > > > Choi? > > > > <uzchoi at samsung.com>; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > > > > Subject: Re: [cftg] Re: Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF > > > > IANA? > > > > Port Number Assignment > > > > > > > > Let me repeat, once again: > > > > > > > > IANA-defined ports without a hinting mechanism so that each? > > > > application can suggest which port it wants to bind to is worse > > > > than the current situation. > > > > Applications may race to bind to the first port. > > > > > > > > If a hinting mechanism is present, then your problem is > > > > solved,? > > > > without requiring IANA assignment. > > > > > > > > On segunda-feira, 25 de abril de 2016 12:23:43 PDT ASHOKBABU > > > > CHANNA > > > > wrote: > > > > > When Out-Of-Proc model feature comes into IoTivity, it will > > > > > solve? > > > > > multiple applications issue with IANA defined ports. Before > > > > > that,? > > > > > define specific IANA ports help to resolve multiple > > > > > discoveries > > > > > of? > > > > > the same resources after every restart. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Ashok > > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > > > > Sender : Wouter van der Beek (wovander)<wovander at cisco.com> > > > > > Date > > > > > : > > > > Apr > > > > > 25, 2016 14:26 (GMT+05:30) Title : RE: [cftg] Re: Re: [dev] > > > > > [cftg] Re: > > > > > Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment one can > > > > > define? > > > > > multiple IANA ports? but have more android apps than defined > > > > > ports.? > > > > > Does not sound right to me. > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > Wouter > > > > > > > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity > > > > > .o > > > > > rg > > > > > ]? > > > > > On Behalf Of ???(Uze Choi) Sent: 25 April 2016 09:54 > > > > > To: cftg at openconnectivity.org; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.or > > > > > g > > > > > Subject: RE: [cftg] Re: Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: > > > > > OCF > > > > > IANA? > > > > > Port Number Assignment This is reason why I requested > > > > > multiple > > > > > ports. > > > > > Of course, in your case, IoTivity should increase the port > > > > > until? > > > > > available port found. BR, Uze Choi > > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity > > > > > .o > > > > > rg > > > > > ]? > > > > > On Behalf Of Wouter van der Beek (wovander) Sent: Monday, > > > > > April > > > > > 25,? > > > > > 2016 > > > > > 5:51 PM > > > > > To: ???(Uze Choi); cftg at openconnectivity.org;? > > > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [cftg] Re: Re: > > > > > [dev]? > > > > > [cftg] > > > > > Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment Well, if > > > > > multiple? > > > > > android apps are used on the same port, that just will fail. > > > > > Hence? > > > > > this is not an solution that will work.. > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > Wouter > > > > > > > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity > > > > > .o > > > > > rg > > > > > ]? > > > > > On Behalf Of ???(Uze Choi) Sent: 25 April 2016 02:25 > > > > > To: cftg at openconnectivity.org; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.or > > > > > g > > > > > Subject: RE: [cftg] Re: Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: > > > > > OCF > > > > > IANA? > > > > > Port Number Assignment Hi Wouter, > > > > > > > > > > Because of Android and iOS, we should consider multiple > > > > > applications? > > > > > which is same meaning to multiple OCF/IoTivity instances. For > > > > > the? > > > > > multiple instance, device will requires the other port beyond > > > > > coap? > > > > > default port (e.g., 5683). So that Let?s use the registered > > > > > port? > > > > > rather than system randomly assigning port. > > > > > BR, Uze Choi > > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity > > > > > .o > > > > > rg > > > > > ]? > > > > > On Behalf Of Wouter van der Beek (wovander) Sent: Saturday, > > > > > April? > > > > > 23, > > > > > 2016 12:49 AM > > > > > To: uzchoi at samsung.com; cftg at openconnectivity.org;? > > > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [cftg] Re: Re: > > > > > [dev]? > > > > > [cftg] > > > > > Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment How will > > > > > the > > > > > IANA? > > > > > registration help the sandboxed android apps? > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > Wouter > > > > > > > > > > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity > > > > > .o > > > > > rg > > > > > ]? > > > > > On Behalf Of ??? Sent: 22 April 2016 14:18 > > > > > To: cftg at openconnectivity.org; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.or > > > > > g > > > > > Subject: [cftg] Re: Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF > > > > > IANA? > > > > > Port Number Assignment Hi, I think Ashok (maintainer of? > > > > > discovrry&connectivity-CA layer) testing gives us important > > > > > message. > > > > > If we consider OCF application on Android or iOS which > > > > > usually? > > > > > targets multiple sandboxed concept applications from market,? > > > > > multiple ports allocation for unicast socket channel is > > > > > inevitable. > > > > > Otherwise we need to restrict OCF/IoTivity into constraint > > > > > device > > > > > only. > > > > > Furthermore Current IoTivity allocate the unicast port > > > > > randomly? > > > > > which always open the possibility to invade non permitted > > > > > area? > > > > > (port), which requires fix before commercial product release. > > > > > I? > > > > > believe OCF/IoTivity should resolve the problem with IANA? > > > > > registration. Only left issue is whether we will request > > > > > single > > > > > port or multiple ports registration. > > > > > IoTivity perspective it will be decided by Ashok who > > > > > maintains? > > > > > connectivity layer. BR Uze Choi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---?? ???--- > > > > > ??? : ASHOKBABU CHANNA > > > > > ???? : 2016/04/22 19:44 (GMT+09:00) > > > > > ?? : Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port > > > > > Number? > > > > > Assignment > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Yes. In my opinion registering to IANA like any other > > > > > services > > > > > (? > > > > > http -80, allseen ..etc) makes more usability from user > > > > > perspective.?? > > > > > This makes sense to not to discover all the time about > > > > > resource > > > > > uris? > > > > > before operating.( if its not reachable, we will discover > > > > > like > > > > > normal scenario). > > > > > It is possible that ipv6 gets new address, but its rare > > > > > instance > > > > > in? > > > > > home scenarios where IPV4 is used. And also for IPV6 if it > > > > > can > > > > > map? > > > > > mac address, it might not get changed as suggested. > > > > > In our testing even we use reuse address, only the last > > > > > binded? > > > > > application gets the unicast data. So it ruled out using a > > > > > single? > > > > > unicast port. and Registering the port via API from developer > > > > > makes? > > > > > confusion as we are supporting multiple transports which > > > > > might > > > > > not? > > > > > require port at all. API should not be transport specific > > > > > from > > > > > my? > > > > > view. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Ashok > > > > > > > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > > > > Sender : Markus Jung<markus.jung at samsung.com> Senior > > > > > Engineer/IoT? > > > > > Lab./Samsung Electronics Date : Apr 21, 2016 23:57 > > > > > (GMT+05:30) > > > > > Title : > > > > > Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number > > > > > Assignment > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > i agree to Thiago's suggestion. > > > > > Additionally, I think that IoTivity should by default use > > > > > only > > > > > one? > > > > > port (e.g., 5683) and not split up different functionalities > > > > > on? > > > > > multiple ports (e.g., only discovery on 5683 and data > > > > > transmission? > > > > > on other ports - that's how it works now). I know this has? > > > > > implications on having multiple instances running on one > > > > > device, > > > > > but? > > > > > the default is to have only one instance per device. I think > > > > > that > > > > > is? > > > > > the root cause of the evil, that leads to the request of > > > > > reserving a? > > > > > set of IANA port numbers ... BR Markus > > > > > > > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > > > > Sender : Thiago Macieira<thiago.macieira at intel.com> > > > > > Date : Apr 22, 2016 02:53 (GMT+09:00) Title : 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 > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > .o > > > > > > > > rg > > > > > > > > ?>? > > > > > > > > [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 inte > > > > > > > > l. > > > > > > > > co > > > > > > > > m > > > > > ???? : > > > > > > > > 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 openconnectiv > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > y. > > > > > > > > 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 openconnectivi > > > > > > > > ty > > > > > > > > .o > > > > > > > > rg] > > > > > > > > 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 openconnectivit > > > > > > > > y. > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > g 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 openconnectivi > > > > > > > > ty > > > > > > > > .o > > > > > > > > rg] > > > > > > > > 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 openconnect > > > > > > > > > > iv > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > y.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 > > > > > > > > .c > > > > > > > > om > > > > > > > > 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 samsun > > > > > > > > > g. > > > > > > > > > co > > > > > > > > > m;? > > > > > > > > > ??? ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Dr.techn. Markus Jung > > > > > IoT, IoTivity, OIC | IoT Lab > > > > > Software R&D Center | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd Mobile +82 > > > > > 10? > > > > > 3304 > > > > > 8502 markus.jung at samsung.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > ---- > > > > > ----- > > > > > -- > > > > > ------ > > > > > ------ Sr. Technical Manager, Software Architect. > > > > > SRI-B, IoT Division/ IoTivity, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. > > > > > +91-9880709710 > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > ---- > > > > > ----- > > > > > -- > > > > > ------ > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > ---- > > > > > ----- > > > > > -- > > > > > ------ > > > > > ------ Sr. Technical Manager, Software Architect. > > > > > SRI-B, IoT Division/ IoTivity, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. > > > > > +91-9880709710 > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > ---- > > > > > ----- > > > > > -- > > > > > ------ > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > iotivity-dev mailing list > > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > > > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > > _______________________________________________ > > iotivity-dev mailing list > > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > > >
