[core] Second Resource Directory plug test: Report, part II
Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com> Wed, 17 October 2018 07:47 UTC
Return-Path: <christian@amsuess.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B761130E80; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 00:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRQPmJpmtIyo; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 00:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prometheus.amsuess.com (alt.prometheus.amsuess.com [IPv6:2a01:4f8:190:3064::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9202212D4E9; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 00:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com (unknown [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:a800:ff:fede:b1bd]) by prometheus.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44F1441B67; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:47:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (hermes.amsuess.com [10.13.13.254]) by poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3AAC2A; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:47:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hephaistos.amsuess.com (hephaistos.amsuess.com [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010::71b]) by poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8747343; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:47:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (nullmailer pid 3562 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:47:19 -0000
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:47:19 +0200
From: Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com>
To: core@ietf.org, dnssd@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20181017074719.GA1873@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
References: <20180926161903.GA30204@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <20181003093716.GA9366@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <20181010112030.GC31858@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="FCuugMFkClbJLl1L"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181010112030.GC31858@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/xpa0WGK-exYHH8g6dB9JIxSnkiY>
Subject: [core] Second Resource Directory plug test: Report, part II
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:47:30 -0000
Hello observers of the Resource Directory plug tests, we have concluded part II of the second installment of the RD plug tests. (DNS-SD: Report part I only went to CoRE as it was time critical to an interim. The summary covers both, details on [1].) Summary: Three implementations were tested, and all eventually passed the implemented subsets of RD. (Jim's covered everything, Christian's everything but groups, Hauke's embedded one acted as an endpoint). Four details that need claraification in the specification were discovered (handling of link-local addresses, and the below), but nothing major. Two implementations could not interoperate due to IPv6 not having been universally deployed. No implementations of extensions to RD (like RD-DNS-SD) were known so none were tested. We hope for participation of implementing parties in future events. Questions raised: * When matching against endpoint registrations, can an href filter query be matched as a relative reference (eg. /lkp/ep?href=/reg/1)? * Can a registration be "taken over" by a Commissioning Tool? * Is displaying the base of a registration mandated in EP lookup? They're being taken up in the document's issue tracker for discussion among the authors, and expected to be clarified in the next version of the draft. Details below. Best regards Christian [1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/enMOFPTiK9qcS-lxpQ-VVyyKbuc --- Implementations under test were: * Jim Schaad's resource directory, implemented in C# and running on an unconstrained system. * aiocoap's resource directory (see [1]; Christian) * RIOT's registrant endpoint (see [1]; Hauke) Test execution: * Christian's server with Jim's registrant and lookup client Tests were executed in sequence and passed unless noted otherwise, with the following alterations and notes: * Test 1, 2: Unicast address used as devices were not in multicast range. * Tests 6-7, 9 and 14 (anything group related) were not supported by the server * Test 11 was not implemented on the server. * Bugs in the implementations were found in tests 1 (when modified by the client to include ct lookup; actually a bug in the server's implementation of RFC6690), 13 (client sent content-format indication payload while it shouldn't, due to a limitation of the underlying library). * Jim's server with Hauke's client * Test could not be executed because the test sites did not share a common IP version. * Registration through a relay (see rd-relay description in [1]) was attempted but failed for reasons discovered later. The paring will be tried again in the next plug test, either with IPv6 everywhere or some sort of tunneling in place, possibly facilitated by F-Interop. * Jim's server with Christian's client Tests were executed out of sequence because several tests are grouped together in a single client application run. All tests except where noted did pass, with several alterations and notes: * Test 1, 2: Unicast address used as devices were not in multicast range. * Tests 6-7, 9 and 14 (anything group related) were not supported by the client. * The .well-known/core resource was advertised in all registrations in addition to the prescribed resources, and consequently shown in the lookups. * In test 13, the wrong registration was updated. This was noticed in test 15; the lookup results were consequently in conflict with the test description, but consistent with the course of the experiment. * Bugs were found in tests 2 (the * in lookup was matched to "one or more characters", actually a bug in the server's implementation of RFC6690) and 4 (a slash was expected to trail the base value), and fixed before continuing. * The participants spent some time debugging the spurious absence of GET requests triggered by simple registration, which was actually an artifact of all network scanners having been configured to port 5683 exclusively, and the registrant using a different port to avoid collision with an already active non-simple endpoint. -- There's always a bigger fish. -- Qui-Gon Jinn
- [core] Second Resource Directory plug test Christian Amsüss
- Re: [core] Second Resource Directory plug test Christian Amsüss
- [core] Second Resource Directory plug test: Repor… Christian Amsüss
- [core] Second Resource Directory plug test: Repor… Christian Amsüss