prplwrt Meeting – December 1, 2016

View meeting on YouTube

attendees: Eric Schultz, Mike A, August G, Cesare, Daniel, Felix,
Hauke, Jeremy, Kathy, Luka, Matteo C, Mauro, Nils, Pasquale, Paul
Blay, more late arrivals

TR-069 and CM software integration with OpenWrt

  • Felix’s abstraction layer is mostly done, although it may be helpful
    to have more plug-ins for various implementations
  • different ways of dealing with objects shown as an example with json
  • need as much feedback as possible from users of the API
  • Luka’s team looking into the API
  • integration for ADB different than SoftAtHome — intend to use the
    new API (Matteo/ADB suggests that those interested should join the
    conversation they are having with Felix, outside this call)
  • goal to have beta test by next week’s call

Board Farm Status

  • Limited recent activity
  • Paul – CI-40 going to be upstreamed and he will send a board to the farm
  • Mike may be adding Yocto support to board farm in coming months
  • Any interest in historic devices in the farm? Sure, except that the
    ones with limited memory may just sit there, since they can’t be
    supported by trunk anymore

Funding

  • patch file for QCA9531 (for Anonabox) will be proposed for funding,
    and then it can be included in board farm
  • Daniel IoT idea: make sensors and low-bw actuators available through
    a standard API. First thought was ubus service, but now looking at the
    new Felix SCAL framework and thinks that would be better, since
    includes backend command extensions as well.

    • Sukru from Inteno had comments about working together
    • Good to continue comments and participation on the mailing list
    • Felix intends that parts can be put into containers to improve
      security around interaction with IoT devices from the OpenWrt
      platform, also ACLs can be hooked in to control connections to various
      plug-ins
    • Luka will help coordinate a call

Regulatory

  • Report was due Tuesday and the gist of the recommendations were that
    the discussion continue into next year. (Broaden the audience
    reviewing the proposals.) If they don’t want to do that, then they
    should include some descriptions for protecting target parameters
    (some sw, mostly social guidance) that are less destructive to the
    open source and research community. How can digital signing meet the
    needs of the FOSS community?

    • meeting next week, but some other discussions ongoing this week

OpenWrt Summit

  • committee met yesterday and reviewed the 2016 summit survey
    responses (positive 8.2/10) and attendees left with an even more
    positive view of OpenWrt/LEDE (7/10)
  • seeking more members so that we can have sub-committees (handle
    sponsors, determine location, organize sessions…)

CIG

  • Follow-up call with Scott W from BRCM to gain feedback on their
    ability to conform to standard Linux APIs better in the future.
  • Next call Monday 9am PST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s