Re: [Iotops] IOTOPS Draft Charter

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> On 3 Nov 2020, at 17:50, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >>
    >> To me, the point was to deal with the lifecycle issues of IoT.
    >> That's one the list in point (1) was about.

    > If the proposed WG to work on lifecycle issues: do you think these
    > would be extensions to protocols done elsewhere in IETF, new protocols
    > or something else?

Well, all three.

I think that the WG should first look for available existing protocols.
Said protocols might need profiles and/or new code points to deal with the
specific situation.  Such a document could occur in an active WG, if one
exists, but it could be that the WG is no longer alive.

I feel it very unlikely that there would be new protocols from scratch.
But, say, some variation of webdav to do configuration management/updates?
Or a YANG module?  Or an extension to the CAPPORT API? (assuming that WG concludes)
A document giving a series of EAT (RATS) claims?

Under "something else", I would include adopting work that has occured in
some industry-specific vertical, under the whole "Informational 1.0",
and "IETF Change-Controlled 2.0" pattern.

Plus, of course, the handful of MUD extensions, and another handful of IoT
focused BRSKI extensions.

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