I only consider local discovery use case. BR, Uze Choi -----Original Message----- From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:c...@openconnectivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 12:58 AM To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Cc: ???(Uze Choi); cftg at openconnectivity.org Subject: [cftg] Re: [dev] [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] Re: Re: [cftg] RE: OCF IANA Port Number Assignment
That is only necessary if you're going to try and run an OIC server in the cloud, with discovery via DNS. If that is the use-case, we could use a registration of an official port, but we need a single one (or a pair, one for TLS and one without it). Is that the use-case? On ter?a-feira, 26 de abril de 2016 10:02:55 PDT ???(Uze Choi) wrote: > Problem is not solved. > Regardless of hint mechanism, IANA registration is required. > We can set the HTTP server start by specifying the port, even we have > the default port 80. BR, Uze Choi -----Original Message----- > From: cftg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:cftg at openconnectivity.org] On > Behalf Of Thiago Macieira Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 12:51 AM > To: cftg at openconnectivity.org; ashok.channa at samsung.com > Cc: Wouter van der Beek (wovander); Uze Choi; > 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.org] > > On Behalf Of ???(Uze Choi) Sent: 25 April 2016 09:54 > > To: 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 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.org] > > 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.org] > > On Behalf Of ???(Uze Choi) Sent: 25 April 2016 02:25 > > To: 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 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.org] > > 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.org] > > On Behalf Of ??? Sent: 22 April 2016 14:18 > > To: cftg at openconnectivity.org; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > > 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.org > > > > > > [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 intel.com > > > > > > ???? > > > > > : > > > > > 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 openconnectivity.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 openconnectivity.org] > > > > > 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 openconnectivity.org 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 openconnectivity.org] > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > openconnectivity.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.com > > > > > 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 samsung.com; > > > > > > ??? ( > > > > > > > > > > > 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 -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
