Re: Getting on with Things

Stewart Bryant <> Wed, 09 March 2016 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAEE712D7AD for <>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 09:07:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aYAFXxs8MRqp for <>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 09:07:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EDC212DFA3 for <>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 09:06:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p65so201422652wmp.1 for <>; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 09:06:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=g51exyKWYYOzHyKMip4HOs6cWuDXBkYOH4+nRziUM5Q=; b=B++H2tQ1IpxBgbIZolvMksOn+g/11HtSaMqlH63foEASYVQR7/YI0GBi2+J7Hhdb7l wBpVUNB3qcXdBJeoafwZEobFFswOHSwAmynhQ4BumDrm232uS4VnxZ4o1h2GomxsOitN E5ynhd25UmFBuxLJraDFkA+8UgYtsd5bMzoJVwxnFzwEW2ChKHXMLJbCisKqafNvrUgw M6X76V+7q8L9/Q3l0C0mq4G8fh0316hSUHMxsY9rkGg7DCtAQ/BRSjjEO97Is8qdVoJC vDAwdMDlk6VgLyoeAlBLl/dxv5+9Q6F9/Uj6yQI76/1k2tFKfpzf6z1ekClKYrjd5+uX dtvw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=g51exyKWYYOzHyKMip4HOs6cWuDXBkYOH4+nRziUM5Q=; b=kGk0Vt3Bk8vB51l3ZPfV71Ucn+UVPBPpYWsD8r1xt5gT7+btOrGzQgoiBQigarlZqQ S+hsnnZ4Vb2QVBnsYiS7v/EWw22cJDEWwMJ/vYajyem1ORpQiOB+M6Te0ggNO4OncBkt JI8v1asUeSp3I9Gvl1cniUaYxZn6fYLDAqr2X5YJil7bcLeDnY++a7OTkgD7zQ0nAG2s dSezn0oQ6gQAYVdWsowgn4SeahU3g4Oa/B2nHvVfuSjIXKLWr3Ec5OzqmHVPVVVOYl6/ 6h7+xRsWDfdyRQmDZawfUhIpOUf543DZmK3cf4CWu+1D56WpZIR3hmXI5SDb81AMlydd bjqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKPOub3UkaBukoecRb8u6bpH+7L/hdPh8Zs5Q0Fcd3bQffWOBYd4hyCOivg8Pj9FQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id l1mr36165643wjw.108.1457543195001; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 09:06:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id i5sm8786420wja.23.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 09 Mar 2016 09:06:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Getting on with Things
To:, 'Eliot Lear' <>, 'Michael Richardson' <>, 'Phillip Hallam-Baker' <>
References: <> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657DF2330@dfweml701-chm> <> <> <> <> <> <> <00e301d17a24$2d48eba0$87dac2e0$>
From: Stewart Bryant <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 17:06:32 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <00e301d17a24$2d48eba0$87dac2e0$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 'IETF' <>, 'Rich Kulawiec' <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 17:07:13 -0000

On 09/03/2016 16:53, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Eliot,
> Picking one piece out of your MUD...
>> I've floated an idea in draft-lear-mud-framework-00.txt which talks a
>> little about this.  The idea is to learn what the Thing is and then have
>> its manufacturer communicate to a deployment how the thing is intended
>> to be used.
> This approach worries me. While the manufacturer might not object to this, the user and the system integrator should. The fact that a device was manufactured for foo should not stop it being used for bar.
> Adrian

Indeed, and too often manufactures already  do this as part of their 
business model.

A classic example is where performance is throttled, or features are 
enabled only by

It is but a short step to application specific restriction, although if 
an application has
third party IPR there can be a liability that rests with the 
manufacturer, in which
case you can understand the concern.

As distasteful and frustrating as this is, restriction of application 
may be an unfortunate necessity.

- Stewart