Our initial goal was to provide this as an errata to OIC 1.1 (maybe OIC 1.1.1).
I don't think we need to test with a probability for randomness. That's QoI. I think we should test that the reply is neither: * immediate * longer than the maximum time On segunda-feira, 5 de dezembro de 2016 16:14:02 PST Mitch Kettrick wrote: > Hi, > > > > Combining two responses (one from Thiago and one from Uze). > > > > Thanks for the updated status. It sounds like this won?t be implemented in > the OIC v1.1 timeframe which is a departure from our initial goal. That?s > fine. I just want everyone to be aware that we are not currently > testing/certifying this feature. Until we have spec text and a > corresponding implementation, there is nothing we can do in the CWG. > > > > Uze: Will we test it with probability basis for randomness? > > > > Good question. We?ll also need help to define the test requirements for this > so that the CTT can apply the proper pass/fail judgement. These test > requirements will have to come from the ATG. > > > > Thanks, > > Mitch > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org > [mailto:architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 3:58 PM > To: Mitch Kettrick > Cc: Richard Bardini; Dwarkaprasad Dayama; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; > cert_wg at openconnectivity.org; 'Jacek Hryszkiewicz'; > architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org; '???' Subject: [architecture_tg] Re: > [cert_wg] RE: CTT Gap status sharing request - IPv6 Updates > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > From: architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org > [mailto:architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org] On Behalf Of ??? Sent: > Monday, December 05, 2016 3:46 PM > To: Mitch Kettrick; 'Thiago Macieira'; Richard Bardini; ???? > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; architecture_tg at > openconnectivity.org; > 'Jacek Hryszkiewicz'; cert_wg at openconnectivity.org Subject: > [architecture_tg] RE: Re: [dev] [cert_wg] RE: CTT Gap status sharing > request - IPv6 Updates > > > > Hi Mitch, > > Random delay has not been implemented in IoTivity1.2.1 yet because we cannot > delay the release to fix the PF schedule. > > As far as I know this is a kind of performance issue rather than > interoperability itself. Furthermore it is not easy to test this feature. > > Even it has been discussed during ATG, opensource perspective there is no > implementation yet, it is rational to exclude it from certification scope I > think. > > I expect it will be done from next IoTivity release but still not sure we > should check it for certification. Will we test it with probability basis > for randomness? > > BR, Uze Choi > > > > --------- Original Message --------- > Sender : Mitch Kettrick <cpm at openconnectivity.org> > Date : 2016-12-06 08:21 (GMT+9) > Title : Re: [dev] [cert_wg] RE: CTT Gap status sharing request - IPv6 > Updates > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > > > > > > > > > > <http://ext.samsung.net/mail/ext/v1/external/status/update?userid=uzchoi&do > =bWFpbElEPTIwMTYxMjA1MjM0NTU5ZXBjbXMxcDIyYjQ4OTY4YWYxYTIxMzQ1ZGFmYWQyYjIwODU > 0Nzg1ZSZyZWNpcGllbnRBZGRyZXNzPWFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZV90Z0BvcGVuY29ubmVjdGl2aXR5Lm9 > yZw__> -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
