Re: English man spends 11 hours trying to make cup of tea with Wi-Fi kettle

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Dean Willis <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On 10/12/2016 08:51 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> > Right now we seem to have more industry IoT interest groups than ever.
> > But what we don't seem to have is a group whose brand is going to mean
> > 'it will work, it is secure and there are no hidden vendor lockins'.
>
> Arguably, (with Apple being the primary example and Chromebook backing
> it up), one can only make it work, and be secure, in the presence of
> EXPLICIT vendor lockin. And then only when said vendor doesn't get lazy
> and take shortcuts.
>
> In the implementation-of-standards world, MUST is optional, SHOULD is
> ignored, and MAY is merely permissive of promiscuity.
>
> Compliance needs sharp teeth, and the IETF doesn't even have rubber
> dentures.
>

​I agree, But there are three separate problems

1) Define a set of specifications that address the problem.
2) Provide a means that allows aware consumers to know if products are
compliant​

​(1)​
​3) Make consumers aware to look for (2)​


​I don't think IETF needs to address 2 or 3. Those are marketing type
efforts. WiFi being a successful example. But if it doesn't address 1 then
it will become irrelevant in the space.​