Re: [icnrg] next stepd for draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-requirements

I agree with the previous comments and I support the adoption of it as
a WG document

Best Regards
Gennaro


--
Gennaro Boggia, PhD
Associate Professor
DEI - Politecnico di Bari
v. Orabona 4
70125 Bari (Italy)
Tel. +39 080 5963913
Fax +39 080 5963410
Skype: g.boggia
e-mail: gennaro.boggia@poliba.it; gennaro.boggia@gmail.com
web: http://telematics.poliba.it/boggia


2016-09-19 22:29 GMT+02:00 Cedric Westphal <Cedric.Westphal@huawei.com>:
> I agree with Lixia and Marie-Jose that this draft would benefit from being
> worked on by the  RG. I support adoption as a WG document.
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> C.
>
>
>
> From: icnrg [mailto:icnrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Marie-Jose
> Montpetit
> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 9:06 AM
> To: Lixia Zhang
> Cc: icnrg@irtf.org; Dirk Kutscher
> Subject: Re: [icnrg] next stepd for draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-requirements
>
>
>
> I agree with Lixia. This needs more focus. Security is yes weak and should
> not be an afterthought. But I think the justification of ICN for IOT needs
> more in-depth descriptions and use cases. I can see many reasons to use ICN
> in IOT (flexibility in caching, storage and retrieval, naming abstraction,
> abstracted functionalities) but almost as many reasons not too (added
> complexity, lack of backward compatibility, firmware development in sensor
> networks) etc. A few solid examples and I would say solid implementations
> comparing the advantages of ICN vs. current implementations would be great.
> Our houses are already filled with IOT apps; how will ICN make them better?
>
>
>
> I am not saying the draft is bad. Just that it needs more work before truly
> reflecting the gains that ICN will bring to IOT.
>
>
>
> Marie-José
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 17, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 16, 2016, at 9:00 AM, Dirk Kutscher <Dirk.Kutscher@neclab.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> This may have fallen between the cracks during the summer break – so this is
> a friendly reminder:
>
>
>
> Please let us have your opinion on how to pursue with this draft. Do you
> support adopting it as an RG document?
>
>
>
> I just had a quick look over the draft: it seems to me that this draft still
> left lots rooms for improvements, not the least is its treatment on
> security.  The current draft seems reflecting the common mindset that
> security is something one has to mention, not that security is an integral
> component in all aspects of a system.
>
>
>
> Section 2: would it be more appropriate to move security from section 2.8 to
> section 2.2, right after naming?  given security needs crypto protection,
> crypto is directly related to identities
>
>
>
> Section 4 on Advantages of using ICN for IoT has no mentioning about
> security.
>
>
>
> Section 5, like section 2, puts security discussions much later after  other
> subjects that may be felt more familiar with, like name resolution, caching
> and storage, routing/forwarding, etc.--aren't al these components need
> security as well?
>
> There seem also discussions on trust that seems separate from security ...
>
>
>
> Another comment is a wish: the draft looks really
> abstract/motherhood-and-applepie to me, I wonder whether it would be
> possible to ground the description with some specific examples.
>
>
>
> my 2 cents from a *super* quick flip through (so please take with a big
> grain of salt!)
>
>
>
> Lixia
>
>
>
> From: Dirk Kutscher
> Sent: Montag, 8. August 2016 17:33
> To: icnrg@irtf.org
> Subject: next stepd for draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-requirements
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> at the Berlin meeting, we concluded that we’d use the mailing list to agree
> on next steps for draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-requirements [1].
>
>
>
> In case you don’t remember, this draft is the result of a merger of
> draft-zhang-iot-icn-challenges-02 [2] and
> draft-lindgren-icnrg-efficientiot-03 [3], focusing on the scenario,
> requirements and challenges aspects of both input drafts.
>
>
>
> After the merger, the authors have submitted another version, reflecting
> some community feedback.
>
>
>
> Please see https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-icnrg-3.pdf
> for a summary of the genesis and the current content.
>
>
>
> The chairs would like to get an understanding whether the ICNRG has an
> interest in pursuing this draft as a RG activity (“adoption”). We normally
> do this for drafts where there is a critical mass of interested people that
> would like to see this progressing within ICNRG and eventually be published
> as an (in this case, Informational)  RFC. This would also require a critical
> mass of people that would be interested to spend cycles for reviewing the
> draft and future revisions.
>
>
>
> Could you please let us know whether you think this draft a) should be
> adopted as a RG item and b) whether you’d be able to help reviewing it?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Börje, Dave, Dirk (ICNRG chairs)
>
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-requirements/
>
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-iot-icn-challenges-02
>
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lindgren-icnrg-efficientiot/03/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> icnrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> icnrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> icnrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>