LWM2M for device management - Githubissues

zephyriot / zephyr-issues

0 stars 0 forks source link

LWM2M for device management #219

Closed nashif closed 7 years ago

nashif commented 8 years ago

Reported by Anas Nashif:

As a Zephyr developer, I would Zephyr to include a library to support LWM2M device functionality, so that my product can be managed from an LWM2M server.

Lightweight M2M from the Open Mobile Alliance is fast becoming the global industry standard for M2M device management for the development of a fast, deployable, client-server specification to provide machine-to-machine service. OMA Lightweight M2M is designed to:

Provide Device Management functionality over sensor or cellular networks
Transfer service data from the network to devices
Extend to meet the requirements of most any application

Zephyr support for LWM2M Device Functionality will include:

Simple Object based resource model
Resource operations of creation/retrieval/update/deletion/configuration of attribute
Resource observation/notification
TLV/JSON/Plain Text/Opaque data format support
UDP transport layer support
DTLS based security
Queue mode for NAT/Firewall environment
Multiple LWM2M Server support
Basic M2M functionalities: LWM2M Server, Access Control, Device, Connectivity, Firmware Update, Location, Connectivity Statistics

(Imported from Jira ZEP-216)

nashif commented 7 years ago

by Joakim Eriksson:

The Queue mode is not only useful for firewalls and NAT but also even more important for sleepy devices running LWM2M.

nashif commented 7 years ago

by ethan gao:

This story contains many features to implement, is there any RFC for it now ?

nashif commented 7 years ago

by Michael Scott:

FYI, I'm working on a Zephyr port of Joakim Eriksson work which was previously merged into the Contiki base back in 2016. Joakim Eriksson and others have continued to improve the library over time and I'm basing my work on the "stand alone" version here: https://github.com/sics-iot/lwm2m-contiki/tree/lwm2m-standalone-dtls

Changes include:

Replacement of the ER-CoAP APIs with Zephyr CoAP APIs (ZoAP) -- this the bulk of the work involved
Minor "Zephyr-ization" of code such as using SYLISTs etc.
Coding style changes to meet Zephyr standards
Kconfig support for using all / some or a minimal version of the library

I still have quite a bit of work to do -- but if you're curious, I'm keeping a WIP branch based on Zephyr master here: https://github.com/mike-scott/zephyr/tree/lwm2m/subsys/net/lib/lwm2m

nashif commented 7 years ago

by Anas Nashif:

Michael Scott can we assign this to you then? When do you think we can first see this in Zephyr?

nashif commented 7 years ago

by Michael Scott:

Yes, please assign it to me. Re Timing: Best guess would be an RFC PR in about 2 weeks? That would be for the initial library addition supporting QEMU / K64F testing against a Leshan demo server.

nashif commented 7 years ago

by Joakim Eriksson:

Maybe we should in the long run figure out if we could design a CoAP API that make it easy to support the lwm2m code both on top of ER-CoAP (as in Contiki) and the ZoAP - or is that a too big task? (have not checked out the ZoAP API in detail yet).

nashif commented 7 years ago

by Michael Scott:

Initial RFC patches submitted: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/712

nashif commented 7 years ago

by Mark Linkmeyer:

Hi Michael Scott , is this story expected to be implemented in time for 1.9? Or, is it still in planning where it's not known yet if it will make it into 1.9? Thx.

nashif commented 7 years ago

by Michael Scott:

Hi Mark Linkmeyer ,

I've just returned from holiday and this is my priority for the next 2 weeks with the intention of getting https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/712 merged before the 1.9 cutoff.

nashif commented 7 years ago

by Mark Linkmeyer:

Thanks Michael Scott , and welcome back! Based on your last comment, I'm going to change the status of this story from NEW (a.k.a. "planning") to IN PROGRESS since you plan to have it done for 1.9 and you have the pull request where you're asking for feedback comments. Or, do you actually have code changes you are already submitting for code review? If so, we should set the status to CODE REVIEW. Thx.

nashif commented 7 years ago

by Michael Scott:

Mark Linkmeyer I think CODE REVIEW is a better status. My next update to the PR will be to remove RFC tags and address feedback previously supplied. A basic code review of the RFC PR has already happened.

nashif commented 7 years ago

by Mark Linkmeyer:

I just updated the status for you Michael Scott . Thx again.

nashif commented 7 years ago

by Michael Scott:

Initial PR: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/pull/712 is basically ready to merge. Pending 1-2 final reviews. (Jukka Rissanen has already agreed it was ready).