Closed
Bug 815554
(b2g-oma-cp)
Opened 13 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
[meta] Firefox OS 1.2 Client Provisioning feature
Categories
(Firefox OS Graveyard :: General, defect)
Tracking
(blocking-b2g:koi+, firefox26 fixed)
| Tracking | Status | |
|---|---|---|
| firefox26 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: dcoloma, Unassigned)
References
(Depends on 1 open bug)
Details
(Keywords: meta)
Boot2Gecko should support a way to provisioning the device settings OTA. This is very helpful, for instance, in order to support virtual operators.
Comment 1•13 years ago
|
||
This is a v1+ feature we'd like to add. Nom'ing so we can triage accordingly.
blocking-basecamp: --- → ?
blocking-kilimanjaro: --- → ?
Comment 2•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Chris Lee [:clee] from comment #1)
> This is a v1+ feature we'd like to add. Nom'ing so we can triage
> accordingly.
So this is post-v1? If so, we should - this. If this is for v1 itself, I don't think we should increase the scope of v1 at this point.
Flags: needinfo?(clee)
Comment 3•13 years ago
|
||
We agreed this is a post-V1 feature.
Comment 4•13 years ago
|
||
This is post-v1.
blocking-basecamp: ? → -
Flags: needinfo?(clee)
Target Milestone: --- → B2G C4 (2jan on)
Comment 5•13 years ago
|
||
This is a meta for tracking OMA Client Provisioning bugs. Releasing tracking flags since this is a meta bug.
Alias: b2g-oma-cp
blocking-basecamp: - → ---
blocking-kilimanjaro: ? → ---
Keywords: meta
OS: Mac OS X → Gonk (Firefox OS)
Hardware: x86 → ARM
Summary: Add support for Client Provisioning → [meta] Add support for Client Provisioning
Depends on: 869291
Blocks: 838057
Comment 6•12 years ago
|
||
Change the title to track this feature for 1.2
Depends on: 848403
Summary: [meta] Add support for Client Provisioning → [meta] Firefox OS 1.2 Client Provisioning feature
Comment 7•12 years ago
|
||
Please provide the items what we need to configure via OMA-CP.
Flags: needinfo?(bhuang)
Depends on: 897368
Comment 8•12 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ken Chang from comment #7)
> Please provide the items what we need to configure via OMA-CP.
My thoughts on this is we should provide a "generic" implementation. This means we enable the protocol, but allow partners to customize depending on the settings that each operator would like to provision.
I've linked a few stories to this:
bug 898994: Enabling OMA CP protocol
bug 898997: Define a mechanism for OEMs to receive the provisioning request and write to settings accordingly
Flags: needinfo?(bhuang)
Updated•12 years ago
|
blocking-b2g: --- → koi+
Updated•12 years ago
|
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Updated•12 years ago
|
status-firefox26:
--- → fixed
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•