You looks a little bit confused with IoTivity scope. Beyond the OCF protocol path, we cannot handle everything. Let's think about the UPnP bridge, are we handling the UPnP secure channel from first? BR, Uze Choi -----Original Message----- From: Thiago Macieira [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:39 PM To: ???(Uze Choi) Cc: ashok.channa at samsung.com; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] CoAP - HTTP Proxy Review Request
On sexta-feira, 29 de julho de 2016 15:32:13 PDT ???(Uze Choi) wrote: > Please do not block the enthusiasm to provide the solution for non > HTTPS website. CA is not affected from it. Please do not concern. Enthousiasm is fine, but we don't have to accept every single submission, specially if that submission goes against IoTivity's vision. Since our vision is one of a secure Internet of Things (among other things), a solution that does not enable security goes against the vision. Until the security aspect is implemented, it should not be released. So until then, keep it in a separate branch from master. Develop it as needed. Once security and all other requirements are implemented, we can merge to master. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
