IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Iot-directorate] IETF107 prep call agenda thoughts

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 27 February 2020 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211223A0A46 for <iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 06:44:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y8LuR3vZzhwu for <iot-directorate@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 06:44:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC34C3A0A44 for <iot-directorate@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 06:44:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4AC438982 for <iot-directorate@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 09:43:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C099F1084 for <iot-directorate@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 09:44:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IETF IoT Directorate <iot-directorate@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <34096156-5025-4A2D-8694-7EA06F519F14@ericsson.com>
References: <E5668B56-0295-4E4D-B5A0-A33530744F95@ericsson.com> <10007.1582749540@localhost> <34096156-5025-4A2D-8694-7EA06F519F14@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 09:44:36 -0500
Message-ID: <5578.1582814676@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/-uhkXDKeY7CVtrRpVm_bhPG-ES8>
Subject: Re: [Iot-directorate] IETF107 prep call agenda thoughts
X-BeenThere: iot-directorate@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the IoT Directorate Members <iot-directorate.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iot-directorate>, <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iot-directorate/>
List-Post: <mailto:iot-directorate@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-directorate>, <mailto:iot-directorate-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:44:39 -0000

Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> wrote:
    > Absolutely. That would be included into what I was referring to with
    > "highlighting any issues that are of wider interest / require
    > coordination across groups". I was hoping the WG/RG chairs would be up

Yes, I figured you had this in mind, but I wanted to break us out of the
inertia of just repeating what we had done before.
I believe that there was value in the updates, but it is the discussion that
matters, not the report.

    > Did you have something specific in mind on how we should structure that
    > part of the discussion?

What I have in mind:
1) more explicit liason with/from other IoT groups.
   * OCF
   * OCF/Fairhair - (I don't know how integrated it is yet)
   * IoTSF
   * Zigbee/CHIP
   * ETSI,NIST,other governmental efforts
   * insert yours. Not sure we even have a list.

2) outward advocacy/evangelism towards other groups.
   - part of this was the collection of slides and icons and diagrams on github.
   - I've pushed lots of things there, but I'm not sure others have been aware.

3) general/common issues arising from IoT-DIR reviews of documents.

4) discussion about BOFs/WG Chartering efforts that might be ongoing
   (I'm not aware of any; but that might be ignorance)

---
Some of you may be aware of my push towards some kind of IoT (security)
lifecycle work.  An emphasis is on the gaps where we either have no
specification, or where we have too many (XKCD problem).


Overall, how do we get from current siloed Web-Connected Things, to the
Inter*NET* of Things that T2TRG/SENML envisions?


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email