[homenet] summary of Gateway 2 Gateway side meeting
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 08 August 2022 20:59 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16143C157B32; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 13:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.706
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.706 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3zopRmrZ2ksh; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 13:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EB39C14F738; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 13:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2633B18115; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 17:18:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id YBVxK-Sp1Bbf; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 17:18:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9713B1813F; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 17:18:52 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1659993532; bh=CJVP8ocjk9Sw8RQWUq/dFBU2JrXL8VF1xeDHpiuoDjg=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=FnTZlEXNL4lf/wUt40BkanFFE43RCJUKSImUJnYOXKrI6uCPMtOZMMWaM3pljOiOQ 6T2DdUA5wFt0nU6YVMrSpk0MS6uKEpfB9k6HSlQvZ0ube2GaL+nxLNZVJK4BxMn16h fEVIWZmy0OWjlDXT5Lpeug3Si6y2nnf1OlzK7AW/IvHvg2BXI36u1KokdIEm+XzZJf Qv4S3Ymxlmwa+IiXYjmj+VifbquaCF0bsKX2afdEsTecpvDMdc/vRS/1jSgqc1iDAi O/1Z8ifJ/SP3C0kzU2720Zt017LZavplb4ytf02zKIvm/89MJdKfK+4vkNCFxcNl/3 hwkyIRDZw73tQ==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4BF66E; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 16:59:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: homenet@ietf.org, snac@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <178931.1658797968@dooku>
References: <178931.1658797968@dooku>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2022 16:59:48 -0400
Message-ID: <8183.1659992388@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/wdRIMJEcBydoZjWFDzF5aygzYwA>
Subject: [homenet] summary of Gateway 2 Gateway side meeting
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2022 20:59:58 -0000
On Tuesday 2022-07-26, six local people and three remote attendees got together to talk about the Gateway to Gateway communication situation. The remote participant access was probably very poor, but that's the situation today for side meetings. After some introductions, the slides from Wei were opened and the group started to walk through them. { the slides and background document https://github.com/mcr/building-local-emergency-comms/blob/main/presentations/Gateway-To-Gateway-Communication-sidemeeting.pdf https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-richardson-snac-building-use-case-00.html } There were numerous clarifying questions such as: 1) what kind of connectivity is really needed? 2) do devices talk to their own gateways only? Do they talk to other gateways? 3) do devices talk to other devices? 4) how is the security context setup for his communication? There was a general pessimism that a routing protocol like OSPFv3 would do a good job. There was a fair bit of discussion about what are the road blocks to a converged network like this. It was felt that there were significant regulatory roadblocks, and it would be quite difficult to get those regulations changed. An answer to this was: yes, that's true, but what kind of network can be we build that might begin to satisfy the regulator? Could such a network be deployed for non-emergency systems (or non-emergency uses) and then, based upon the observed performance of such a network (perhaps including fire drills), would a regulator begin to see this as reasonable? (As an aside: what are the cost savings of such a converged network? There could be direct savings in terms of wiring and maintenance, but also indirect savings through new opportunities enabled) There was no opinion about RPL/RFC6550, as there was not enough familiarity with it. A question arose: in emergencies, do we even need bi-directional communications? If communications is based upon Object Security (COSE not DTLS/OSCORE), then could it all be done via an Information Centric Networking paradigm? In such a thing, actuators are not connected to sensors by pre-configuration, but rather actuators observe outputs from sensors (which may be multicast), and when some set of conditions occurs, the actuator does something. There was general agreement that ICN could be a very interesting direction to take. It would take onboarding of all devices so that they had an appropriate credential that could be validated against a (set of) trust anchors. Also, because ICN does not involve making active (in the TCP sense) connections to the sensors, it means that there is no inherent trust that must be created in the sensors in order for them to communicate: they simply announce their state and allow the network to do its thing. At this point, the time ran out and the group walked to the social event at the museum. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
- [homenet] summary of Gateway 2 Gateway side meeti… Michael Richardson
- Re: [homenet] [Snac] summary of Gateway 2 Gateway… Marc Blanchet
- Re: [homenet] [Snac] summary of Gateway 2 Gateway… Michael Richardson
- Re: [homenet] [Snac] summary of Gateway 2 Gateway… Ted Lemon