t "*" means different things in different versions of the
security spec.
Mitch
From: Maloor, Kishen [mailto:kishen.mal...@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:55 AM
To: t...@vinetech.co.kr; iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org
Cc: Mitch Kettrick
Subject: Re: [dev] [IoTivity-Lite] Qu
Hi,
CT1.7.8.11 has not been validated yet. What this means is that the TC has not
been proven to work with IoTivity or Lite and is therefore not required to pass
for certification. The CTT will still run the test case but failing it will
not prevent a Device from being certified.
To find out
From: 최진혁 [mailto:jinc...@samsung.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 10:48 PM
To: Gregg Reynolds; JinHyeock Choi
Cc: iotivity-dev; Mitch Kettrick
Subject: RE: Re: [dev] ocf specs?
Gregg
You can find the change history in
https://workspace.openconnectivity.org/apps/org/workgroup
Hi Uze,
Sounds good. I will be on the OSWG call tomorrow.
Mitch
From: ??? (Uze Choi) [mailto:uzc...@samsung.com]
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 11:08 PM
To: 'Mitch Kettrick'; 'Heldt-Sheller, Nathan'; 'Bell, Richard S'; '???';
iotivity-dev at lis
understand things.
Mitch
From: ??? (Uze Choi) [mailto:uzc...@samsung.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 9:44 PM
To: 'Mitch Kettrick'; 'Heldt-Sheller, Nathan'; 'Bell, Richard S'; '???';
iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
Cc: 'Agis, Ed'; '
rom: ??? [mailto:uzc...@samsung.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 9:16 PM
To: Heldt-Sheller, Nathan; Bell, Richard S; ???; iotivity-dev at
lists.iotivity.org
Cc: Mitch Kettrick; Agis, Ed
Subject: RE: RE: [dev] [State update-2 for RC3] [Triage Meeting] RE:
[session2-Meeting minute]: [Triage CC sched
curity_os_tg at openconnectivity.org
Cc: ???(Uze Choi) (uzchoi at samsung.com); Mitch Kettrick; ??? ?? OCF Sec
Subject: Request to postpone IoTivity 1.3-rel branch date from April 7th to
April 17th
Hello OSWG, IoTivity-dev and OSWG Security TG,
As many of you know, being a volunteer project, we've
: Mitch Kettrick
Cc: Richard Bardini; Dwarkaprasad Dayama; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org;
cert_wg at openconnectivity.org; 'Jacek Hryszkiewicz'; architecture_tg at
openconnectivity.org; '???'
Subject: [architecture_tg] Re: [cert_wg] RE: CTT Gap status sharing request -
IP
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
ber 24, 2016 7:56 PM
To: '??? (Uze Choi)'; 'Mitch Kettrick'; 'Mitch Kettrick'
Cc: cert_wg at openconnectivity.org; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
Subject: RE: [Schedule confirm request]RE: [Request to CWG_CB] FW: [IoTivity
1.2.1 Release working Plan] RE: [dev] [Fixed] R
:59 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Mitch Kettrick
Cc: cert_wg at openconnectivity.org, iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org, 'Jacek
Hryszkiewicz'
Subject: [Request to CWG_CB] FW: [IoTivity 1.2.1 Release working Plan] RE:
[dev] [Fixed] RE: IoTivity 1.2.1 Release proposal
Hi MitchTo meet the ti
.3.17'
- Initial Bridging test cases
- Schema files update
Mitch
From: ??? [mailto:uzc...@samsung.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 8:18 AM
To: Mitch Kettrick; ???; 'Heldt-Sheller, Nathan'; 'Richard Bardini'; ???
Cc: iotivity-dev at
) [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:
?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: iotivi
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
Hi all,
Congratulations. There was a lot of hard work done to align IoTivity with the
spec during the last several weeks. Thanks for all of your effort!
Mitch
From: oswg at openconnectivity.org [mailto:o...@openconnectivity.org] On Behalf
Of Markus Jung
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 4:23
: architecture...@openconnectivity.org
[mailto:architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org] On Behalf Of Wouter van der
Beek (wovander)
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 2:07 AM
To: Mitch Kettrick; '???(Uze Choi)'; architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org
Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Jacek Hr
Hi,
Comarch can make this change to the CTT but they asked for one
clarification. Should the CTT change from the CoAP multicast address to
the OCF multicast address and completely forget about the CoAP address? In
other words, once we're using the OCF multicast address (and this patch is
include
Hi,
Of course, IoTivity, the CTT and vendor implementations here at the cert
event have to be updated too so changing the core spec is only part of the
equation.
I agree that it would be ideal to get this implemented this week to avoid
legacy issues with devices that we'll be certifying this we
Hi Stephane (and IoTivity folks),
Is this something that we want to try to implement prior to certification on
Thursday? I'm assuming yes but I'm not sure what the impact to IoTivity would
be.
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: architecture_tg at openconnectivity.org
[mailto:architecture
ty.org] On Behalf
Of Dwarkaprasad Dayama
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:52 AM
To: 'Mitch Kettrick'; sc_tg at openinterconnect.org;
iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; oswg at openinterconnect.org
Cc: swg at openconnectivity.org
Subject: [swg] RE: [sc_tg] RE: [oswg] RE: [sc_tg] Request for new featu
+SWG
Hi Dwarka,
I'm confused. At the F2F meeting, we agreed that the entire organization
should be focused on OCF 1.0 = OIC 1.1 + ASA. Shouldn't the entire focus of
IoTivity be on any features required for ASA interop?
Maybe a vote similar to what occurred in SWG needs to also happen in
Hi Kevin,
CT1.2.3 is a Partial UPDATE test case. The CTT/ITT is supposed to send a GET
(step 1) to get a current representation of the Resource. Then, the CTT/ITT is
supposed to send a POST (step 4) to update one of the Properties.
I am not sure how the ITT has implemented this but you should
Hi Sungkyu,
Excellent work, IoTivity team! Thanks for sharing.
The only one that I had trouble confirming was the block-wise transfer log
but that?s more a function of me not understanding how it is supposed to
look over the wire.
We will also verify these fixes at PF #7 the week of 25-April.
that said, I'm definitely not the right person
to provide answers but I can always be counted on to ask a lot of questions.
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Thiago Macieira [mailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 2:07 PM
To: Mitch Kettrick
Cc: &
Default
Interface wherever possible to ensure that if Servers have to send "the
whole package" it's because the Client explicitly asked for it.
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Thiago Macieira [mailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 1:27 PM
To: Mitch
Hi,
Just to add a few points/clarifications to what Ravi has said:
1. From a test and certification standpoint, we will be verifying that
read-only Properties cannot be written/updated regardless of the Interface
used. In other words, even though oic.if.baseline supports writing, you
s
27 matches
Mail list logo
