Skip to content

SOME/IP Gateway #1115

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 25, 2025
Merged

SOME/IP Gateway #1115

merged 5 commits into from
Aug 25, 2025

Conversation

ZoranCutura
Copy link
Contributor

Draft for Feature Request for SOME/IP Gateway.

This draft needs extensive rework and will be worked on throughout the next weeks.

@qor-lb qor-lb linked an issue May 21, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
Feature Request for SOME/IP Gateway #914
Closed
@HartmannNico
Copy link
Contributor

For starters I recommend to refer to a specific AR specification, e.g. 24/11 or 23/11 for (minimum) SOME/IP compatibility. Otherwise we could also fulfill this FR with an initialo SOME/IP 1.0 implementation which is probably not what we have in mind here.

@ZoranCutura
Copy link
Contributor Author

ZoranCutura commented Jun 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

For starters I recommend to refer to a specific AR specification, e.g. 24/11 or 23/11 for (minimum) SOME/IP compatibility. Otherwise we could also fulfill this FR with an initialo SOME/IP 1.0 implementation which is probably not what we have in mind here.

Good point. Suppose we should agree on the target version in the architecture community.

For the moment I will refer to AUTOSAR release 24-11. We may change this anytime if other version match the OEM expectations better.

@ZoranCutura ZoranCutura force-pushed the zorancutura_some_ip_gateway branch from 0c45921 to 54998f9 Compare June 24, 2025 14:31
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

@ZoranCutura ZoranCutura force-pushed the zorancutura_some_ip_gateway branch 2 times, most recently from fcc8edf to 85d037f Compare June 26, 2025 14:53
@ZoranCutura
Copy link
Contributor Author

ZoranCutura commented Jul 7, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Latest version before the F2F Architecture Workshop (https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/1247) is available for review. Please add your comments for further discussion and improvement.

lurtz
lurtz reviewed Jul 7, 2025
View reviewed changes
@ZoranCutura
Copy link
Contributor Author

ZoranCutura commented Jul 15, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Need to add functionality for following topics:

  • How to expose SOME/IP failures, like checksum, dropped messages to applications
  • Service Discovery for services in Apps
  • How will the Gateway be handled in lifecycle-management
  • Methods in SOME/IP with mw:com / LoLa
  • Requirements to Security and Interface to Crypto --> probably not in priority for the moment

Need to discuss if payload-transformation is required or can be avoided, and the concept of how payload-transformation is realized.

@dasoho
Copy link
Contributor

dasoho commented Jul 17, 2025

  • How to expose SOME/IP failures, like checksum, dropped messages to applications
    ** Is std::expected a possible solution which can be generically used on mw:com user interface level to cover also E2E results?
    ** E2E attributes to be forwarded to applications: sequence counter, timestamp
    ** to cover message loss, message repetition, message delay/stale data
    ** Problem: std::expected has been introduced with c++23
    ** on the other hand, std::expected is part of the API datatype feature request
  • Service Discovery for services in Apps
    ** Problem: Service request (actively using "FindService" is not supported by mw:com concept (yet) due to internal realization with inodes for service discovery
    ** Solution idea 1: Gateway implements FindService
    **** Pro: No "SOME/IP specific topics pollute mw:com
    **** Con: Clients need to know whether they deal with SOME/IP clients or internal clients
    ** Solution idea 2: mw:com implements find service
    **** It needs to look for corresponding inodes and additionally needs to forward the find service request to the gateway
  • How will the Gateway be handled in lifecycle-management
    ** Do we really need to address lifecycle/health handling already in the feature request?
    ** It seems to early to identify which entities in the gateway do require which type of supervision
    ** This comment would potentially apply to all other feature requests?

@LittleHuba LittleHuba changed the title zorancutura_some_ip_gateway SOME/IP Gateway Jul 21, 2025
@lurtz lurtz force-pushed the zorancutura_some_ip_gateway branch 2 times, most recently from 4cfe546 to ef4161a Compare July 31, 2025 09:53
ZoranCutura
ZoranCutura commented Aug 6, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ZoranCutura ZoranCutura left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

partially too externsive descriptions for feature request level

references to AUTOSAR should be fine.

LittleHuba
LittleHuba reviewed Aug 7, 2025
View reviewed changes
@ZoranCutura ZoranCutura marked this pull request as ready for review August 8, 2025 12:59
@ZoranCutura ZoranCutura requested review from hth9fe and arsibo August 11, 2025 13:09
lurtz
lurtz suggested changes Aug 12, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@lurtz lurtz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

only minor findings

LittleHuba
LittleHuba reviewed Aug 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
@ZoranCutura ZoranCutura requested a review from LittleHuba August 13, 2025 13:26
hth9fe
hth9fe reviewed Aug 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@hth9fe hth9fe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

first review of some-ip gateway architecture document with minor findings

LittleHuba
LittleHuba previously approved these changes Aug 14, 2025
View reviewed changes
LittleHuba
LittleHuba previously approved these changes Aug 14, 2025
View reviewed changes
hth9fe
hth9fe reviewed Aug 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@hth9fe hth9fe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

minor findings except one. Really you need to follow AUTOSAR license conditions?

qor-lb
qor-lb previously approved these changes Aug 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
@qor-lb qor-lb dismissed their stale review August 22, 2025 10:05

Content is approved but commit history has to be cleaned up to avoid merge commits and use rebases to master instead

ZoranCutura and others added 5 commits August 25, 2025 15:35
@ZoranCutura @opajonk
some_ip_gateway: overview SOME/IP gateway
06e439a 
some_ip_gateway: corrected bullet list

corrected the bullet list in the abstract
some_ip_gateway: more detailed architecture

added a deeper overview on architecture and discussion
about introduction of additional processes and communication channel
between SOME/IP service and rest of gateway.
some_ip_gateway: added architecture drawings

added overview drawing on SOME/IP gateway
added draft of drawing on detailed architecture
some_ip_gateway: adapted references to requirements

added references to communication requirements that
shall be fulfilled.
some_ip_gateway: adding references to existing requirements

added references to requirements from IPC.
some_ip_gateway: Cleanup after rebase

now building with github_plages__release target.
Some referred requirements are not in IPC any more and need to be replaced. Commented out!
some_ip_gateway: initial draft

Drafting the SOME-IP-Gateway feature in very first version

extending first draft of some/ip gateway

Added more standard chapters

Added Rationale paragraph

started adding security topics

docs dont build yet

removing problems when building docs. Still does not build

renamed directory to match s-core constraints

adapted Specs for plug-in
@dasoho @opajonk
some_ip_gateway: Add e2e state machine considerations
c55a825
@kalu-an @opajonk
some_ip_gateway: security and crypto
3f98656
@lurtz @opajonk
some_ip_gateway: SOME/IP Service Discovery (#5)
280fc96 
SOME/IP service discovery needs to be mapped to IPC features. Also its behavior in relationship to IPC needs to be shown.
@ZoranCutura @LittleHuba @opajonk
some_ip_gateway: introduced requirements to AUTOSAR compatibility
0b805a1 
some_ip_gateway: spelling correction
some_ip_gateway: spelling corrections
some_ip_gateway: ACL and SD conf

Changes after reviews and discussions
some_ip_gateway: typos
some_ip_gateway: changed comment on architecture
some_ip_gateway: corrections and AUTOSAR reference

corrected typos and wordings
introduced requirements to AUTOSAR compatibility
review comments addressed
some_ip_gateway: adapted requirements to meet com

removed requirements for ACL, as they are defined in com already
removed ASIL requirement as this is defined for com
added remark in specification, that com requirements apply
some_ip_gateway: updated requirements with .. stkh

missing stkh-requirements added
some_ip_gateway: added requirements

reworked requirements
some_ip_gateway: title underline adapted
some_ip_gateway: security-considerations, methods

reworked after internal review
- methods will be treated mostly like events
- security impact adapted to leaner approach
- license impact adapted
- clean-up and wording
some_ip_gateway: license impact to/from AUTOSAR

AUTOSAR components like SOME/IP have to make sure to apply AUTOSAR license
and constraints correctly.
some_ip_gateway: interface to lifecycle

added comments on integration with lifecycle management.
added comment on licenses impacts with AUTOSAR SOME/IP.

Co-authored-by: Ulrich Huber <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Lutz Reinhard <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Kaluza <[email protected]>
@ZoranCutura ZoranCutura force-pushed the zorancutura_some_ip_gateway branch from a456f09 to 0b805a1 Compare August 25, 2025 14:13
@ZoranCutura
Copy link
Contributor Author

@qor-lb the commits have been adapted / squashed, keeping all the commits from individuals of different companies.
Please proceed with merging

@qor-lb qor-lb merged commit 3afe749 into eclipse-score:main Aug 25, 2025
6 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@qor-lb qor-lb qor-lb approved these changes

@LittleHuba LittleHuba LittleHuba left review comments

@antonkri antonkri Awaiting requested review from antonkri antonkri is a code owner

@FScholPer FScholPer Awaiting requested review from FScholPer FScholPer is a code owner

@johannes-esr johannes-esr Awaiting requested review from johannes-esr johannes-esr is a code owner

@markert-r markert-r Awaiting requested review from markert-r markert-r is a code owner

@arsibo arsibo Awaiting requested review from arsibo

+3 more reviewers

@hth9fe hth9fe hth9fe left review comments

@kalu-an kalu-an kalu-an left review comments

@lurtz lurtz lurtz approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
feature_request
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Feature Request for SOME/IP Gateway
8 participants
@ZoranCutura @HartmannNico @dasoho @lurtz @LittleHuba @hth9fe @qor-lb @kalu-an