Re: [Iotops] Fw: I-D Action: draft-km-industrial-internet-requirements-00.txt

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> It feels like your document ended just as it was getting into the question
    >> you ask about how to arrange connectivity, addressing, etc.
    >> Is there more to your document that you had in mind to write?
    >> It's hard to know what your next step in the document would be.

    > [KM] I looked at Industry control problem from service and connectivity
    > aspect. As of now i believe the services related work should be in DETNET
    > territory. the second part - providing a standard and efficient form of
    > inter-protocol connection on a factory floor can be discussed in
    > Iotops.

So DETNET can clearly provide the layer 1/2 guarantees for
deliverary/latency.  But I think that depth in security needs each
communication security.

    > [KM]  It will be great to have a discussion on the transport and security of
    > industry control operations. I think OPC-UA does have TLS support between the
    > application and a server in the factory - But  I would guess that it does not
    > extend all the way to end devices (simply because fieldbus devices only
    > perform I/O commands and do not have sophisticated transport).

It extends across the Ether/IP, but no, I don't think that they are
considering object security across the fieldbus.  CoAP could be run with
EDHOC to key it giving session security, but in many cases object security
would be better.


    >> 2) since many of the other protocols use significant shorter identifiers,
    >> creating an overlay spec that embeds them in IPv6 IIDs would be
    >> interesting.
    >>
    >> This would allow IP based controllers to address Modbus, profibus,
    >> profinet, sensors/actuators directly, and if the underlying gateways and
    >> wiring allows, in a stateless way.
    >> Stateless is good because it means that the redundancy in the wiring can
    >> be exploited.
    >>
    >> This would be interesting work, but probably the IETF does not have the
    >> right people here (AT THIS TIME), to make progress on that.

    KM> Hmm, that's fair to certain extent. But , the IPv6 IID design type of
    KM> expertise is very much here in the IETF. There are also other things
    KM> of industry control relating to long-term use cases (I tried to avoid
    KM> those in first draft) but we can talk about which ones are
    KM> interesting to the group.

Yes, the IID design is here, but not the fieldbus expertise to know what we
want to map.

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