Re: [Lln-futures] Notes from hallway meeting in Vancouver

Dear all,

I agree that having a formal BOF in Atlanta would be great to kick off some discussion. Geoff, what do we need to prepare for a formal BOF in IETF?

Security for LLN is definitely one of the areas that we should address. A common solution for key management, communication security, security bootstrapping is beneficial as we can remove redundancies due to the constraints of the devices.

Cheers
Sye Loong

-----Original Message-----
From: lln-futures-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lln-futures-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Mulligan
Sent: woensdag 12 september 2012 19:59
To: lln-futures@ietf.org
Subject: [Lln-futures] Notes from hallway meeting in Vancouver

LLN people,

Here are the notes (thank you Justin) from the hallway meeting in Vancouver.

There seems to be some "sort-of" parallel efforts (coman and solace), but potentially focused on different areas.

We had about 7 or 8 people attend the hallway discussion.  There seem to folks interested in a variety of topics related to LLNs that were not addressed by 6lowpan.  If we would like to have a formal BOF in Atlanta I need to request it soon so we should have some good discussion about work items and topics for the the BOF.

Please read these notes below and lets start talking...

     geoff

---------------- Notes ---------------------

6lowpan has shut down but there is still stuff to be done.

What are the gaps in getting M2M communication to work within the scope of LLNs?

Management of constrained devices might be taking place in COMAN.

Where do we do architectures for LLNs?  In general the IETF doesn't do architectures but its hard to tackle these problems without an over arching framework.

There are lots of different drafts and protocols and who is the person/group looking over them and seeing if they are going to work and how they fit together.

What about a common security solution for LLNs?  There are different levels of security for different type of systems. It might be possible to leverage the shared medium characteristics to help secure these devices.

With the layering approach we have so far....our feeling is that we have many different solutions at the different layers. We end up with different solutions  doing the same work and potentially not interoperable.

There is an interest in security and key management.  End to end security in a multihop network.

The original drafts we put out we said you can't do IPSEC. Technology has increased so perhaps we can do ipsec in these smaller devices, or some subset of ipsec.

The 802.15 group has been expanding at a rapid rate- some new PHYs and MACs.  Is there interest in IP over these?

Working groups cluster multi dimensional issues together and the solutions to the different issues might not be the same.  LLN (as low power lossy networks) are they low power or are they lossy or are they both?  Perhaps we should focus on one or the other

What about device identity issues.  Is this in SOLACE or COMAN _______________________________________________
Lln-futures mailing list
Lln-futures@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lln-futures

________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.