Re: [tinydtls-dev] Question about current status/support with Contiki

[Olaf Bergmann <bergmann@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Raul,

Raul Fuentes <ra.fuentess.sam+tinyDTLS@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I have been working with TinyDTLS 0.8.2 since last year, mostly trying
> to updating the work from Lithe (CoAP Secure using Contiki 2.6 and
> tinyDTLS 03.0) to the current versions. My work is currently here:
> https://github.com/rfuentess/contiki/tree/CoAPS-Eclipse

Thanks for sharing, I will definetely have a look into this.

> However, I was wondering, after testing the current code in the
> Eclipse's portal, seems that the support to Contiki is lesser than
> before.

I would hope not. If that is the case, I was in error when constructing
the initial contribution for Eclipse. I had to replace some stuff to
avoid certain dependencies to Contiki, but this should not be any
problem. However, I did not yet have time to test that on real hardware
(just tested with platform minimal-net and ensured that it compiles on
certain platforms that I usually work with).

> And, the session_t from the client is suffering an overwritting,
> changing the port and address value before the transmit (probably
> bigendian to litttleendian or a wrong casting), plus a problem when
> trying to assign memory for generating a context after finding a new
> peer (though that probably is the fact the mote don't have enough
> space).

Data corruption due to memory constraints may happen, no doubt. This is
still ongoing work and needs more effort on the robustness side.

> So, basically I want to confirm if the support to Contiki had been
> tested with the new code or if will be slowly removed, like already
> happened with contiki's examples. And if the current version in
> Eclipse will be still being "0.8.2" or the number will be updated in a
> near future.

tinydtls will continue support for Contiki. I had to remove Contiki
examples temporarily but will re-add those when I have checked LICENSE
compatibilty according to the IP process of Eclipse. This was done due
to time constraints on my side and should not indicate a specific
direction the development process will follow.

The snapshot forming the initial contribution has the version number
0.8.2 to indicate continuity with the old, SF-hosted, code. I envision
to update the version number to 0.9 after clearing the open legal
questions regarding the ECC code (which may cause the existing ECC
implementation to be replaced).

The plan for a first official release is not written but do not expect
it before 3-6 months from now. There is a lot of work to do...

> P.d. Maybe is a good idea to put git tag to the olderst versions of
> TinyDTLS

Fair enough. By now, the latest "old" state is conserved in the HEAD of
the branches in the "_old" namespace.

Grüße
Olaf