Feature request : UDP support

[JanneKiiskila]

As part of ARMmbed/mbed-os#6545 investigations we come to the conclusion that we have a test gap - the TLS connections are not tested with UDP (with the exception of Mbed Cloud Client) - so as such it would be really good to have both TCP and UDP as options for the TLS example.

Could it be added? It should be preferably an option you can configure from the mbed_app.json file.

What target(s) are you using? Target: Client reference boards, typically K64F, K66F,
What toolchain(s) are you using? Toolchain: GCC-ARM, ARM C 6.
What version of Mbed OS are you using (tag or sha)? cdc2d45e05622f375d222b1920a9df148c5acbab, master, Mbed OS 5.15.x and Mbed OS 6.x
It would help if you could also specify the versions of any tools you are using? N/A, varies according to Mbed OS release used.
How can we reproduce your issue: See description (new feature request).

[everhardt]

What would be especially great, is if that DTLS example could also include CoAP.

The only existing DTLS+CoAP implementations I can find are in nanostack and mbed-cloud-client, but both are too heavily entangled with other code (about IPv6 mesh networks and LwM2M respectively) for me to distill a clean DTLS+CoAP example out of it.

[simonbutcher]

The purpose of these samples are to demonstrate the technology and use of the API. Testing is covered elsewhere.

@JanneKiiskila - Do you just want a DTLS system test for an Mbed OS board? If so, that's something else which we're already working on, and is nothing to do with this sample code.

cc: @mazimkhan

[ciarmcom]

@JanneKiiskila thank you for raising this issue.Please take a look at the following comments:

Could you add some more detail to the description? A good description should be at least 25 words.
What target(s) are you using?
What toolchain(s) are you using?
What version of Mbed OS are you using (tag or sha)?
It would help if you could also specify the versions of any tools you are using?
How can we reproduce your issue?

NOTE: If there are fields which are not applicable then please just add 'n/a' or 'None'.This indicates to us that at least all the fields have been considered.
Please update the issue header with the missing information, the issue will not be mirroredto our internal defect tracking system or investigated until this has been fully resolved.

[ciarmcom]

@JanneKiiskila it has been 5 days since the last reminder. Could you please update the issue header as previously requested?

[ciarmcom]

@JanneKiiskila it has been 5 days since the last reminder. Could you please update the issue header as previously requested?

[JanneKiiskila]

@adbridge - seems to be me the BOT is teasing me for no reason, the ticket was updated.

[ciarmcom]

@JanneKiiskila it has been 5 days since the last reminder. Could you please update the issue header as previously requested?

[ciarmcom]

@JanneKiiskila it has been 5 days since the last reminder. Could you please update the issue header as previously requested?

[ciarmcom]

@JanneKiiskila it has been 5 days since the last reminder. Could you please update the issue header as previously requested?

[ciarmcom]

@JanneKiiskila it has been 5 days since the last reminder. Could you please update the issue header as previously requested?

[ciarmcom]

@JanneKiiskila it has been 5 days since the last reminder. Could you please update the issue header as previously requested?

[ciarmcom]

@JanneKiiskila it has been 5 days since the last reminder. Could you please update the issue header as previously requested?

[ciarmcom]

@JanneKiiskila it has been 5 days since the last reminder. Could you please update the issue header as previously requested?

[ciarmcom]

@JanneKiiskila it has been 5 days since the last reminder. Could you please update the issue header as previously requested?