Hi Uze,
Collections are part of OIC v1.1 and are intended to work as specified. Yes, Collections are optional but even optional features must comply with our specifications if implemented. Two major OIC/OCF companies that have been participating in Plugfest from the beginning intend to implement Collections in real products in 2016 so we should do what we can to get them working. Yes, we?re a bit behind because the ATG just finalized the schema files at the Taipei meeting but we should do what we can to get them working. Let?s start gathering data on Collections by implementing one in the IoTivity reference device. Since /oic/res is very similar to a Collection, we shouldn?t be too far from having a working solution. Client Testing has not been a focus until very recently. There are two vendors who intend to certify devices this year that act primarily in the Client role. It wasn?t until just 2 weeks ago that we finally figured out which test cases are applicable and we have yet to run any of the server- role test cases against a ?Client?. Dwarka is working on this issue in parallel so I hope we can resolve this quickly. So to answer your question, yes, we may find new issues when doing this testing but it would be better to find and fix them now rather than waiting until the devices are submitted for certification only to find the issues then. The critical path to all of this is to get the testing started so that we can analyze the results. Sungkyu, is it possible to add a Collection to the IoTivity reference device and then to test Collections and Server-role test cases against a Client? One of the vendors is also doing some Collections testing in parallel so I?m hoping we can get this resolved quickly. Thanks, Mitch From: ??? (Uze Choi) [mailto:uzc...@samsung.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 5:38 PM 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, Thank you for your great summary and sharing effort. I?m little bit afraid that some item from below create another action item to be done in IoTivity v1.2-rel. When do you expect it will be cleared and what is the critical path from IoTivity side for this activity? 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 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/20161122/ba16a5b6/attachment.html>
