It was not implemented yet.

I haven't had time to work on the spec text CR, even though it should be no 
more than a paragraph. I might have time next week to work on it.

The code change may be more difficult, I haven't begun looking into that. It's 
unlikely I'll be able to do much.

Em segunda-feira, 5 de dezembro de 2016, ?s 15:21:09 PST, Mitch Kettrick 
escreveu:
> Hi Thiago, Richard and Dwarka,
> 
> 
> 
> Where do we stand on this?  Was this ?random delay response? feature
> implemented in IoTIvity v1.2.1?  Was it discussed on today?s ATG call to
> define the requirements from a spec perspective?
> 
> 
> 
> This has not been implemented in the CTT yet because we?re waiting for
> direction from the ATG/IoTivity.  The goal was to get this into OIC v1.1.x
> based on our discussions in Taipei?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mitch
> 
> 
> 
> From: cert_wg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cert_wg at 
> openconnectivity.org] On
> Behalf Of Mark Trayer
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 8:26 AM
> To: Mitch Kettrick; '??? (Uze Choi)'; '???'; 'Heldt-Sheller, Nathan';
> 'Richard Bardini'; 'Thiago Macieira'; JinHyeock Choe
> Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cert_wg at openconnectivity.org; 
> 'Jacek
> Hryszkiewicz'
> Subject: RE: [cert_wg] RE: CTT Gap status sharing request - IPv6 Updates
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> 
> 
> As per the minutes from the CTWG sessions at the F2F Richard owns the
> action to close the loop with both Thiago and Dwarka on the necessary
> editorial errata for the Core Spec and the corresponding code change that
> would be needed.  The understanding was that both would be part of a future
> ?dot? release of OIC 1.1.
> 
> 
> 
> So waiting on the update from the action owner(s).
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Mark.
> 
> 
> 
> From: cert_wg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cert_wg at 
> openconnectivity.org] On
> Behalf Of Mitch Kettrick
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 9:22 AM
> To: '??? (Uze Choi)' <uzchoi at samsung.com>; '???'
> <dongik.lee at samsung.com>; 'Heldt-Sheller, Nathan' <nathan.heldt-
> sheller at intel.com>; 'Richard Bardini' <richard.a.bardini at intel.com>;
> 'Thiago Macieira' <thiago.macieira at intel.com>; JinHyeock Choe
> <jinchoe at samsung.com>
> Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cert_wg at openconnectivity.org; 
> 'Jacek
> Hryszkiewicz' <jacek.hryszkiewicz at comarch.com>
> Subject: [cert_wg] RE: CTT Gap status sharing request - IPv6 Updates
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Uze,
> 
> 
> 
> The random delayed response was discussed at the F2F and I thought that the
> goal was to have it in the next release of IoTivity which is why Thiago
> worked on a proposal and presented it in Taipei.  But I?m not 100% cetain.
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, Jin and Thiago, was the intent to try to get the ?IPv6 fixes? in
> OIC v1.1 if possible or wait until OCF 1.0?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mitch
> 
> 
> 
> From: ??? (Uze Choi) [mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:02 AM
> To: 'Mitch Kettrick'; '???'; 'Heldt-Sheller, Nathan'; 'Richard Bardini'
> Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cert_wg at openconnectivity.org; 
> 'Jacek
> Hryszkiewicz'
> Subject: RE: CTT Gap status sharing request
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mitch,
> 
> - ?IPv4/IPv6 changes as discussed by Thiago?
> 
> I figure out that one is link-local/site local scope extension and the
> other is random delay response for multicast.
> 
> First item has been already committed and the latter is not yet committed.
> 
> However, they are not the scope of OIC1.1 and Certification with CTT1.4, I
> think, which mean better to have in 1.2.1 release.
> 
> If any concern about it, then let me know.
> 
> BR, Uze Choi
> 
> From: Mitch Kettrick [mailto:cpm at openconnectivity.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 8:33 AM
> To: '??? (Uze Choi)'; '???'; 'Heldt-Sheller, Nathan'; Richard Bardini
> Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cert_wg at openconnectivity.org; Jacek
> Hryszkiewicz
> Subject: RE: CTT Gap status sharing request
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Uze,
> 
> 
> 
> I?ll let Nathan and/or Dongik provide specific details about any Security-
> related issues if needed.  Here is my understanding of where we are right
> now:
> 
> 
> 
> Items to be fixed on CTT v1.4
> 
> ?        CT1.7.7.1 updated to append ACE with random UUID rather than
> adding a ?*? ACE for /oic/p which already exists
> 
> ?        Update CT1.7.8.1 for Clients - CTT sends a GET to /oic/d which
> has an ACE installed
> 
> ?        Update CT1.7.8.2 to allow any 4.xx error code (CTT now allows
> 4.01 Unauthorized only)
> 
> ?        Update to align with Security CR46 which allows only doxm and
> pstat to be accessed over CoAP rather than all SVRs.  There is already an
> IoTivity patch for this (#14137)
> 
> 
> 
> Items still to be fixed on IoTivity v1.2-rel
> 
> ?        IPv4/IPv6 changes as discussed by Thiago
> 
> ?        NON block-wise transfer (current analysis indicates this is an
> IoTivity issue - email attached)
> 
> ?        Add Policy ?p? to any Collection as discussed by Joey from
> Intel (email attached)
> 
> 
> 
> Items to be added to the IoTivity Reference Device or still to be tested:
> 
> ?        Collections
> 
> ?        Run all sever-role test cases against a device that is primarily
> in the Client role
> 
> 
> 
> Core schema file changes (Richard)
> 
> ?        Update changes to OIC Link schema file as agreed at the F2F
> 
> ?        Update OIC Link schema file to address issues found by Comarch
> (pull request 30)
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mitch
> 
> 
> 
> From: ??? (Uze Choi) [mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 11:32 PM
> To: ???; Heldt-Sheller, Nathan; Mitch Kettrick
> Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; cert_wg at openconnectivity.org
> Subject: CTT Gap status sharing request
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Nathan/Dongik/Mitch
> 
> 
> 
> As a main IoTivity/CTT developer, I?d like to ask you to share IoTivity
> 1.2.1 and CTT1.4 Gap.
> 
> 
> 
> Items To be fixed on CTT 1.4
> 
> -      aaa
> 
> -      bbb
> 
> Items To be fixed on IoTivity 1.2-rel
> 
> -      ccc
> 
> -      ddd
> 
> Interoperability Test status
> 
> -      the lastest testing event: IOTIVITY 1.2-rel (changeID: xxx), CTT 1.3.
> kk
> 
> -      fail 1: aaa/ccc
> 
> -      fail 2: bbb/ddd
> 
> 
> 
> Currently there are several pieces of mail, but too fragmented and detail.
> 
> Following format or equivalent simple format will be helpful I think.
> 
> 
> 
> BR, Uze Choi


-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

Reply via email to