IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Iotops] maintain ownership

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 05 November 2020 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095FB3A1A43 for <iotops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 13:03:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 YFwJDqimWp4Y for <iotops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 13:03:44 -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 F0A893A1A47 for <iotops@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 13:03:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E229738C7D; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:03:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id r4I5RGK7A2Nb; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:03:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C42C38C7C; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:03:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B827B; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 16:03:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Amyas Phillips, Ambotec" <amyas@ambotec.org>, "iotops@ietf.org" <iotops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <45ed90d2-28ad-0726-2ce6-1b92a4fd9712@gmail.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAADB1F8C6@dggeml511-mbs.china.huawei.com> <15665.1604430085@localhost> <20201103204823.GE48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <5254.1604514609@localhost> <EEF8A3ED-E57D-4F84-92DD-5C74123AFD91@ambotec.org> <20562.1604598209@localhost> <45ed90d2-28ad-0726-2ce6-1b92a4fd9712@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 16:03:42 -0500
Message-ID: <4613.1604610222@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iotops/FXhgmogFsrgIJHTGuj3skLeF_iU>
Subject: Re: [Iotops] maintain ownership
X-BeenThere: iotops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IOT Operations <iotops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iotops/>
List-Post: <mailto:iotops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 21:03:46 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Amyas Phillips, Ambotec <amyas@ambotec.org> wrote:
    >> > Most IoT devices are
    >> > now sold with EULAs, constraining any remaining legal concept of
    >> > ownership with contractual terms.
    >>
    >> > You can even find that a licence
    >> > to use it is the only thing you get when you buy a device, legal title
    >> > remaining with the vendor.
    >>
    >> Yes.
    >> Many people have problems with this, but ideally, this state of things would be more explicit.
    >> I think that, if explained clearly, that many entities would refuse to
    >> "license" the device.
    >>
    >> > I’d like to suggest that we set aside legal title and say “ownership”
    >> > for the purpose of this discussion means “logical control of a
    >> > device”. Transfer of logical control is an important and delicate event
    >> > in an IoT device’s lifecycle so this seems to fit within the aims of
    >> > the charter, even if it isn’t mentioned explicitly.
    >>
    >> > I’d like to further suggest that logical control ultimately means the
    >> > right to control what software is installed on a device. That is to
    >> > say, ownership == logical control == the right to set and (if transfer
    >> > of control is supported) replace the firmware update trust anchor. That
    >> > is what ownership means. Every other form of control is delegated from
    >> > that and is called something other than “ownership".
    >>
    >> This definition works for me.

    > It's attractive, but it leaves me with one concern. The concept of "ownership"
    > implies the concept of "theft". If ownership is defined in this new way,
    > what is the equivalent definition of theft? How do we know that the entity
    > with logical control really has the right to that control? How do we
    > know that control has been stolen?

It's a definite tussle between ownership and pwnership.

    > I don't mean that this is a show-stopper, but it does mean that the new
    > definition chases its own tail to some extent.

Legal code often is non-deterministic when executed on different "CPUs" :-)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email