Re: [Iotops] IOTOPS Draft Charter

Michael Richardson <> Thu, 12 November 2020 00:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474273A1281 for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:54:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uqe0MVjmLUBo for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:54:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24AD63A1280 for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:54:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E1D8389B6; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:55:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by localhost (localhost []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id j63PxrQsJqS3; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:55:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF7B5389B5; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:55:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B739F34A; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:54:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Alexey Melnikov <>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <>, "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <31244.1604425849@localhost> <>
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:54:32 -0500
Message-ID: <26359.1605142472@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iotops] IOTOPS Draft Charter
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IOT Operations <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 00:54:37 -0000

Alexey Melnikov <> wrote:
    >> On 3 Nov 2020, at 17:50, Michael Richardson <> 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 <>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide