That's a sufficient condition, but not necessary. For example, if the maximum time is 5 seconds, the reply can come in 1 second.
On ter?a-feira, 6 de dezembro de 2016 09:55:05 PST ??? (Uze Choi) wrote: > Just waiting (Maximum time)/2 can pass the TC I think. > -----Original Message----- > From: architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org > [mailto:architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 9:21 AM > To: architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org > Cc: Mitch Kettrick; uzchoi at samsung.com; 'Richard Bardini'; '????'; > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; 'Jacek Hryszkiewicz'; > cert_wg at openconnectivity.org Subject: Re: [architecture_tg] RE: Re: [dev] > [cert_wg] RE: CTT Gap status sharing request - IPv6 Updates > > 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=uzch > > oi&do > > =bWFpbElEPTIwMTYxMjA1MjM0NTU5ZXBjbXMxcDIyYjQ4OTY4YWYxYTIxMzQ1ZGFmYWQyY > > jIwODU > > 0Nzg1ZSZyZWNpcGllbnRBZGRyZXNzPWFyY2hpdGVjdHVyZV90Z0BvcGVuY29ubmVjdGl2a > > XR5Lm9 > > yZw__> > > -- > 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
