Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Looks good to me. Alan, Zubair, can you adapt the agents to reflect this change? We're now working to get authentication up to speed on the aggregator side. Cheers! On Sep 4, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Diogo Pinheiro wrote: > Hi guys > > I realized that CheckAggregator message has some fiels like tok

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

+1 On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Zhongjie Wang wrote: > Yes, I agree. +1 > > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Diogo Pinheiro > wrote: > >> Hi guys >> >> I realized that CheckAggregator message has some fiels like token and >> agentID that should be included, because CheckAggregator can be u

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Yes, I agree. +1 On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Diogo Pinheiro wrote: > Hi guys > > I realized that CheckAggregator message has some fiels like token and > agentID that should be included, because CheckAggregator can be used before > the agent is registered, so it will not have an ID yet. > My

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi guys I realized that CheckAggregator message has some fiels like token and agentID that should be included, because CheckAggregator can be used before the agent is registered, so it will not have an ID yet. My suggestion is change: message CheckAggregator { > required RequestHeader header

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

I've gone ahead and added testType to message Test. Also, I've taken the liberty of adding string aggregatorPublicKey to message registerAgentResponse. We need the aggregator's public key for agent authentication. Changes have been committed to the common repository. On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 8:18 A

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi, On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Diogo Pinheiro wrote: > Hi > > 2011/6/28 Zubair Nabi > >> Guys, >> >> I propose that we add a field: required string testType >> to message Test to differentiate between a website test and a service >> test. Similar to the field in message Events. >> > > I ag

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi 2011/6/28 Zubair Nabi > Guys, > > I propose that we add a field: required string testType > to message Test to differentiate between a website test and a service test. > Similar to the field in message Events. > I agree with this > > Also, Alan you haven't added the message that will encaps

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Alan, On Jun 29, 2011, at 12:26 AM, Zhongjie Wang wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Adriano Monteiro Marques > wrote: > Sounds good to me... any objections Diogo, Alan? > > On Jun 28, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > >> Guys, >> >> I propose that we add a field: required s

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Adriano Monteiro Marques < [email protected]> wrote: > Sounds good to me... any objections Diogo, Alan? > > On Jun 28, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > > Guys, > > I propose that we add a field: required string testType > to message Test to differentiate

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Sounds good to me... any objections Diogo, Alan? On Jun 28, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > Guys, > > I propose that we add a field: required string testType > to message Test to differentiate between a website test and a service test. > Similar to the field in message Events. > > Also

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Guys, I propose that we add a field: required string testType to message Test to differentiate between a website test and a service test. Similar to the field in message Events. Also, Alan you haven't added the message that will encapsulate all other messages for p2p communication to the common p

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Adriano, On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Adriano Monteiro Marques < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Jun 10, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Zhongjie Wang wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > >> Hi Guys, >> >> >> If the token is sent with the message in

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi, On Jun 10, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Zhongjie Wang wrote: > Hi Guys, > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > Hi Guys, > > >> If the token is sent with the message in plain text, then someone may >> perform a wire-tapping attack. >> And if the two party in communication has

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Guys, If the token is sent with the message in plain text, then someone may >> perform a wire-tapping attack. >> And if the two party in communication has already had a handshake progress >> and figured out a symmetric key >> for current session, then we don't need the token i guess, the symme

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Alan, On Jun 10, 2011, at 12:53 AM, Zhongjie Wang wrote: > Hi Adriano, > Thanks for the timely response. :) > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Adriano Monteiro Marques > wrote: > Hi Alan, > > On Jun 9, 2011, at 3:01 AM, Zhongjie Wang wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >>About the mes

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Adriano, Thanks for the timely response. :) On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Adriano Monteiro Marques < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alan, > > On Jun 9, 2011, at 3:01 AM, Zhongjie Wang wrote: > > Hi all, > >About the message format, I have some comments. >1. Seems th

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Alan, On Jun 9, 2011, at 3:01 AM, Zhongjie Wang wrote: > Hi all, > >About the message format, I have some comments. >1. Seems there're duplicate fields in SendWebsiteReport and > SendServiceReport: > 162 > // send_report > 163 > message SendWebsiteReport { > 164 >

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi all, About the message format, I have some comments. 1. Seems there're duplicate fields in SendWebsiteReport and SendServiceReport: 162 // send_report 163

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Right, mainly for nodes who stays connected for long periods of time. Also, if we want a test to be run ASAP, we need to send this info everytime so the node knows of a brand new test version, updates their test set and run them ASAP. On the software version, if we figure any security issue, the

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi, I think the idea was to keep the binary and test versions as fresh as possible. This ResponseHeader would make sure of that. On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Diogo Pinheiro wrote: > Hi > > I have another question. Why the ResponseHeader has the currentVersionNo > and currentTestsVersion ? I t

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi I have another question. Why the ResponseHeader has the currentVersionNo and currentTestsVersion ? I think we shouldn't send that information all the time. Just when the agent connect, and in a rpc call. What do you think ? --

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi, Both changes committed. On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Adriano Monteiro Marques < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Jun 1, 2011, at 7:11 PM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > > Diogo and I had a chat today and we think that there is no need to have the > timeZone as a field because all messages

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi, On Jun 1, 2011, at 7:11 PM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > Diogo and I had a chat today and we think that there is no need to have the > timeZone as a field because all messages are being exchanged in UTC time. > There is no need for the aggregator to know the timeZone of every agent. Agree. > Seco

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Diogo and I had a chat today and we think that there is no need to have the timeZone as a field because all messages are being exchanged in UTC time. There is no need for the aggregator to know the timeZone of every agent. Secondly, there's a bug in Android Java in case of Protobuf that I want to

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi folks message Event { > required string testType = 1; // Identifier for the type of test taken (WEB > or SERVICE for now) > required string eventType = 2; // The sort of event: CENSOR, TROTHLING, > OFF_LINE > required int32 timeZone = 3; // Time zone of the originating event’s region > required

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

New correction: 2011/5/31 Adriano Monteiro Marques > > On May 30, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Diogo Pinheiro wrote: > > message WebsiteReportDetail { > required string websiteURL = 2; > required int32 statusCode = 3; > optional double responseTime = 7; > optional double bandwidth = 8; > } > > Why the resp

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

+1 I'll commit the change. On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Adriano Monteiro Marques < [email protected]> wrote: > > On May 30, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Diogo Pinheiro wrote: > > message WebsiteReportDetail { > required string websiteURL = 2; > required int32 statusCode = 3; > optional double respon

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

On May 30, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Diogo Pinheiro wrote: > message WebsiteReportDetail { > required string websiteURL = 2; > required int32 statusCode = 3; > optional double responseTime = 7; > optional double bandwidth = 8; > } > > > Why the responseTime is a double ? Shouldn't be an integer ? I thi

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

message WebsiteReportDetail { required string websiteURL = 2; required int32 statusCode = 3; optional double responseTime = 7; optional double bandwidth = 8; } Why the responseTime is a double ? Shouldn't be an integer ? I think we will not need anything more precise than miliseconds. And abou

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

You're correct about the ICMReport message. It's perfectly fine. And +1 for the hostname and IP fields. 2011/5/30 Adriano Monteiro Marques > Hi Zubair, > > On May 30, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > > Guys, > > 2 things: > > 1. ICMReport message is not being used anywhere. Because we h

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Zubair, On May 30, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > Guys, > > 2 things: > > 1. ICMReport message is not being used anywhere. Because we have two separate > SendWebsiteReport and SendServiceReport messages. > Any thoughts on this this? ICMReport is the header for WebsiteReport and Se

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Guys, 2 things: 1. ICMReport message is not being used anywhere. Because we have two separate SendWebsiteReport and SendServiceReport messages. Any thoughts on this this? 2. Secondly, I'm going to add two messages for Website and Service Suggestion message WebsiteSuggestion { required RequestHea

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Ah. Good catch! So I'm going to add required string agentIP = 1; required int32 agenPort = 2; to message AgentData and required string cipheredPublicKey = 6 to message RegisterAgentResponse. 2011/5/29 Luís A. Bastião Silva > Yes. > > Also, in the RegisterAgentResponse it misses the public key

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Yes. Also, in the RegisterAgentResponse it misses the public key ciphered with Aggregator private key. Can you handle that Zubair? 2011/5/28 Zubair Nabi > Guys, > One more thing. Shouldn't the AgentData message also have an IP/Port no. > field? I mean how else will peers connect? > > > 2011/5/

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Guys, One more thing. Shouldn't the AgentData message also have an IP/Port no. field? I mean how else will peers connect? 2011/5/28 Zubair Nabi > Alan, I think that messageType field is redundant. One can use the Protobuf > API to get the message type. > > For example, for a variable 'trace' of

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Alan, I think that messageType field is redundant. One can use the Protobuf API to get the message type. For example, for a variable 'trace' of data type 'Trace', you can get the message name through: String messageType = trace.getDescriptorForType().getFullName(); // In Java. Python has a similar

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi, Luis. I use the command you told me and it works. :) But when I use the TortoiseGit, it doesn't work. Thanks! 2011/5/29 Luís A. Bastião Silva > Can you clone? > > Which the command are you executing? > > git submodule add http://git.umitproject.org/umit-common.git > > > 2011/5/28 Zhongjie Wa

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Can you clone? Which the command are you executing? git submodule add http://git.umitproject.org/umit-common.git 2011/5/28 Zhongjie Wang > Hi Luis, higwidgets is ok. still not able to add the umit-common > submodule... > > 2011/5/28 Luís A. Bastião Silva > > Try again. >> >> >> On Sat, May 28

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Luis, higwidgets is ok. still not able to add the umit-common submodule... 2011/5/28 Luís A. Bastião Silva > Try again. > > > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Zhongjie Wang wrote: > >> This is the message I've got: >> " >> git.exe submodule add -- "[email protected]:/higwidgets.gi

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Try again. On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Zhongjie Wang wrote: > This is the message I've got: > " > git.exe submodule add -- "[email protected]:/higwidgets.git" > "" > > Cloning into higwidgets... > ERROR:gitosis.serve.main:Repository read access denied > fatal: The remote end hun

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

This is the message I've got: " git.exe submodule add -- "[email protected]:/higwidgets.git" "" Cloning into higwidgets... ERROR:gitosis.serve.main:Repository read access denied fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly Clone of '[email protected]:/higwidgets.git' into submo

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Just fixed for higwidgets, but umit-common is readable/writable by everyone already. What is the error you're getting? On May 27, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Zhongjie Wang wrote: > Hi, I'm also having issues with downloading the higwidgets and umit-common. > Seems no reading permissions. :( > > On Sat,

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi, I'm also having issues with downloading the higwidgets and umit-common. Seems no reading permissions. :( On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > Okay guys, > I'm done with the .proto. > I've made a number of changes. Please have a look at the changelog to > follow them. > I thin

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Okay guys, I'm done with the .proto. I've made a number of changes. Please have a look at the changelog to follow them. I think these messages are now in a shape that we can start using them in our code. Just in case, please go through all the messages in detail (following the flow of request/respo

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Zubair, Awesome!! Keep up with the good work. Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers! On May 27, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > Hi Adriano, > > No. I was having issues adding the common repository to the mobile repository > as submodule but Luis and Rodolfo helped me solve

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Adriano, No. I was having issues adding the common repository to the mobile repository as submodule but Luis and Rodolfo helped me solve that problem. A couple of messages were missing from the .proto. I added them. Now I'll add the optional messageType field for p2p messages. On Fri, May 27,

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Zubair, You have write perms there already... are you having any issues with that repo? On May 27, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > Sounds good. Let's keep it a string. The type would be the name. > > Let's keep it optional. It will be used in p2p communication but not in > aggregator

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

On May 27, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > That's a very good point. In case of p2p agents we will only be sending > messages using a standard send function. So, there is no way to tell the > message type. We should add an int32 for message type considering that we > have a standard nu

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

HI Alan! No worries pal. In cases where more than one type of message can be received, we try the one that occurs most first, and then the other if the first fails. Every remote method will have a pre-determined request and response type. Kind Regards, On May 27, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Zhongjie W

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

But then we'll have to keep extra information to translate what every messageType means. That's just extra information. Rather than sending an int32 and then figuring out what it translates to, wouldn't it be better that we keep it string to increase readability? On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Z

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

nonono, your proposal in the previous email is quite right. It's better to use a int32 fields prior to the message. then we can know the message type after reading that tag field. On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > Sounds good. Let's keep it a string. The type would be the nam

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Sounds good. Let's keep it a string. The type would be the name. Let's keep it optional. It will be used in p2p communication but not in aggregator communication. So this is the extra field that I propose: optional string messageType = x; Does everyone agree? Adriano - Do we have write access t

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Zubair, That's a good way. I agree. :) On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Zubair Nabi wrote: > That's a very good point. In case of p2p agents we will only be sending > messages using a standard send function. So, there is no way to tell the > message type. We should add an int32 for mes

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

That's a very good point. In case of p2p agents we will only be sending messages using a standard send function. So, there is no way to tell the message type. We should add an int32 for message type considering that we have a standard number of messages. If int32 messageType == 1 then that could a

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Adriano, Sorry, I didn't see the email of that doc. Then it's perfect. :) There's one more question, how to detect the message type when I receive a message? Is there any field to indicate the type? On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Adriano Monteiro Marques < [email protected]> wrote: > H

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Alan, Actually, the common .proto that Adriano just shared addresses all your concerns. Can you please go through it and then we can decide if anything needs to be added/subtracted. We will also be using the same messages for p2p communication as well. On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Zhongjie

Re: [umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Alan, On May 27, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Zhongjie Wang wrote: > Hi Zubair, Diogo: > I hope you guys could join and figure out the detailed message format for > the communication interfaces. :) > In the spec, we have decided to use RESTful webservice and RPC call for the > communications. Now

[umit-devel] Communication interface between different units in ICM

Hi Zubair, Diogo: I hope you guys could join and figure out the detailed message format for the communication interfaces. :) In the spec, we have decided to use RESTful webservice and RPC call for the communications. Now the form of RPC call is somewhat obscure, we need to make a clearly define