Re: [Iotsi] New IoT effort at

Eliot Lear <> Tue, 23 August 2016 11:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8CA12D0E1; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 04:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.07
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.07 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W-d_f_b52P7A; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 04:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6528D126579; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 04:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3081; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1471950409; x=1473160009; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=DQ5QsTJinCw1Xy6lQwGDMTDhmM8GnnmntMM4dewSvMM=; b=TEMe4KGZreubKP+siQKyzEMYFHQ3bApbXW99+m3CCnJ6PxyPVm6AZmtp NxOKr/w70FuWfKPdIQrn2QOr4PT5fB7GRSkblTX40VRK2Rdt02Y9a2qVJ x9wFHOIfYqRRHC9F6HpszeDMO+zyo/MSghTvev9tz4kFJd1furfQquR/l g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,565,1464652800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="644065391"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Aug 2016 11:06:47 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7NB6kUU021523; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:06:46 GMT
To: Hannes Tschofenig <>, Tim Coote <>, David Janes <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Eliot Lear <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 13:06:46 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OiTdOCeEc2oAWxbFLuota8PI9MhuB8l14"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Ted Hardie <>, Internet Architecture Board <>
Subject: Re: [Iotsi] New IoT effort at
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet of Things Semantic Interoperability Workshop <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:06:55 -0000

Hi Hannes,

On 8/23/16 12:56 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Eliot, Tim,
> I believe you are talking about two different types of states.
> The information you are talking about, Eliot, is rather static and does not change whereas my reading of the email Tim sent was more about information that sensor and actuators exhibit.
> Is my understanding correct? Tim, maybe you can elaborate a bit more about the ' overall system state' you are referring to.

Tim wrote:
> However, there is a significant issue that the deployed Things do not
> necessarily tell (or know) the truth about what they are or their
> current state.

It's the "who they are" part below that I'm working on now.  That's what
MUD+802.1AR gives you.  In that case, as I wrote, the assertion is from
the manufacturer of the Thing, and not the Thing itself.  As to the
device's operational state, that gets us into other areas that is not
unique to Things, and leads us toward the age old question: “how do you
know whether a device is sane or has been hacked?”  And there are ways
to address that, imperfect though they may be.