Re: [Iotsi] New IoT effort at

Hannes Tschofenig <> Tue, 23 August 2016 12:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15FF412D941 for <>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 05:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.091
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dv3G6GnIUCvs for <>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 05:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D140212D0C9 for <>; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 05:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1-arm-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=rpY3iq0XnH/2uNVjMd4PoMqtYxE+5BUuTtViUDyrBIM=; b=j7mjhbrxfkFS7eZ2dqyD5gWmV7jDYwWGNQMZ5gljOD6QVLjGNNJUsQXO/yfQ7Ux0y/j6XiBt3IvDWIWmUm7G51ekPTT9OnaM2CNH/kkR1547dh5GCRPECUWs6io5BhU/ZoRlGE//NTQXZrz5wwVP3mT8g7OD6cmpJ+pfAzgfEMk=
Received: from ( []) (Using TLS) by with ESMTP id uk-mta-24-Hjj27kVLOPiWkEzwj1FoXQ-1; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 13:03:12 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P384) id 15.1.587.9; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:03:09 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0587.013; Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:03:09 +0000
From: Hannes Tschofenig <>
To: Eliot Lear <>, Tim Coote <>
Thread-Topic: [Iotsi] New IoT effort at
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:03:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 90c5a11d-cfe9-4950-29f1-08d3cb4d7356
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; HE1PR0802MB2476; 20:NlEUGNfFbiJ1Izf0/mu0AxGCJxkpTCJkTQQFqz/P21lJsMwfqKO0cWpF6gNFW84hEP8vu+MLZJuMXQmjOqtZRXO0/8sHrL2+WYIKXOI/j77R9KrHlKw4Lb1TIfjkIzcRRwPVzFbfQ8sSEAgBw7Za1P9Pm3TGDDIyI6xhd3+Ea7c=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:HE1PR0802MB2476;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(95692535739014)(81439100147899);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026); SRVR:HE1PR0802MB2476; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:HE1PR0802MB2476;
x-forefront-prvs: 004395A01C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(7916002)(40434004)(199003)(377454003)(189002)(13464003)(24454002)(19580395003)(189998001)(19580405001)(5001770100001)(97736004)(106116001)(105586002)(122556002)(74316002)(87936001)(86362001)(106356001)(101416001)(5002640100001)(33656002)(305945005)(11100500001)(66066001)(10400500002)(54356999)(76176999)(50986999)(3660700001)(93886004)(3846002)(7846002)(7696003)(7736002)(586003)(76576001)(4326007)(9686002)(77096005)(8936002)(2900100001)(68736007)(81156014)(31430400001)(2906002)(8676002)(102836003)(3280700002)(81166006)(6116002)(5890100001)(92566002)(5660300001)(2950100001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR0802MB2476;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 Aug 2016 12:03:09.4366 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f34e5979-57d9-4aaa-ad4d-b122a662184d
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0802MB2476
X-MC-Unique: Hjj27kVLOPiWkEzwj1FoXQ-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, David Janes <>, Internet Architecture Board <>, Ted Hardie <>
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 12:03:21 -0000


I would like to hear your view on why NEA has been a failure.


-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Lear []
Sent: 23 August 2016 13:33
To: Tim Coote
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; David Janes;; Ted Hardie; Internet Architecture Board
Subject: Re: [Iotsi] New IoT effort at

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


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.