Re: [Iotops] IOTOPS Draft Charter

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

The only actual work that I see the WG having is:
   3) Publish operational practice and document requirements.

Given that the IESG has been clear that it isn't particularly interested in
requirements documents with protocols,  this means that only "operational
practice" documents (BCPs) will wind up here.

The "discuss" points (1) and (2) are things that the more open
IOT-DIRectorate can already do.

I don't really see the point of doing this.

To me, the point was to deal with the lifecycle issues of IoT.
That's one the list in point (1) was about.

There are some serious gaps in the process, and if we can't address those
gaps without a lot of back and forth, then I don't see how it contributes to much.

While I think we need a MOPS-like group (as I understand MOPS, which I
don't really), we also need a place to actually get the work done.

I understand that there has been negotiation within the IESG, but I have no
idea what the objections were, since they haven't been public.

I don't believe that the IESG has much IoT, let alone IoT-security expertise,
so I am skeptical about the objections.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide