Re: [Iotsi] New IoT effort at schema.org

So I'm hearing that NEA the concept has been successful as vendor proprietary
(two-sided) systems, but as a result, NEA The Protocol, has been still born.

That's been my impression too.

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
    > On 8/23/16 2:03 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
    >> Eliot,
    >>
    >> I would like to hear your view on why NEA has been a failure.
    >>
    > I've given this more thought.  Let us distinguish between NEA the
    > protocol and NEA the concepts.  The concepts are very well deployed,
    > mostly in the form of mobile device managers (MDNs), including the VPN
    > module I am using at this very moment.  These sorts of modules tend to
    > be two-sided vendor specific, meaning that little standardization is
    > required.  This works well when there are very few types of devices.  It
    > works less well when we don't even know how to count how many types of
    > devices there are.

    > Eliot

    >> Ciao
    >> Hannes
    >>
    >>
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@cisco.com]
    >> Sent: 23 August 2016 13:33
    >> To: Tim Coote
    >> Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; David Janes; iotsi@iab.org; Ted Hardie; Internet Architecture Board
    >> Subject: Re: [Iotsi] New IoT effort at schema.org
    >>
    >> Going down...
    >>
    >>
    >> On 8/23/16 1:26 PM, Tim Coote wrote:
    >>> There’s a commercial asymmetry here, which means that Thing Makers may not know what they have released (their focus is on shifting boxes) and any assertion, unless backed up by a legal contract is worth little. Whoever is dropping in hardware based Things may put in a new version or a replacement from a different supplier that claims to be the same as something else. But isn’t.
    >> I think what you are saying is that there are white label products out there.  It is true that one might simply not ask the question.  I don't find that particularly satisfying, and I know my enterprise friends are even less enthralled.  They need a way to identify what is accessing their networks.
    >>
    >>
    >>> My conclusion was that the owner of the service delivered to the customer must define automated tests and behaviour categorisations that are used to accept new components and to identify rogues in production.
    >> Sure.  That amounts to NEA, perhaps with a protocol tweak here or there.  But the challenge is getting Things to divulge ANY information in a way that doesn't actually place them on shodan.io.
    >>
    >> Eliot
    >>
    >> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> Iotsi mailing list
    >> Iotsi@iab.org
    >> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/iotsi

    > _______________________________________________
    > Iotsi mailing list
    > Iotsi@iab.org
    > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/iotsi

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

Re: [Iotsi] New IoT effort at schema.org

Attachment: signature.asc