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...@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...@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:uzc...@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:c...@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:uzc...@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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20161205/37c53920/attachment.html>
