Re: [smartobjectdir] Call for Review of draft-iab-smart-object-architecture-04.txt, "Architectural Considerations in Smart Object Networking"

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 29 August 2014 11:12 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: smartobjectdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE9A1A00E1; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 04:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bXUis5ts9bP3; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 04:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x230.google.com (mail-qc0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96E971A00B7; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 04:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id m20so2130456qcx.7 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 04:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=XOcnkT/2il77y3uqZOdFJjEtppnhvn4S+VocyS1O5Zg=; b=ntaDr4thFBHlb7Ief08FZZGtqBvEPE0ffj0PNljUopvUO2qLGH+Z1S/sP9gcJFWuFd 27UUPgdAVll0GTkJTymkefHjTQJxf5tGbF+1m6gBhQwHc+JiQVyN1Lw8GOiVC/gSPQUW FbQh3D52tEaOTEd4AkhXLOYxusK1vhDUICbQb5TY17k4+7gcgtGwbYFp964h2goiJ8ig Coh+Bnu07BHIKoiswPC89y4Brz5bCOM+YacnNKOskS1zMTm5sUiAshR2Rq3YoJqa1Tuv zvaGoVIZnVH53hpLFckCkQsoyDAYYQxyroQWn4Z8ifZL7MPwpu+d8OS4oP0806jnAqYV Wh8w==
X-Received: by 10.229.229.135 with SMTP id ji7mr16293616qcb.15.1409310766873; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 04:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:2481:20:21b0:fbe9:76b4:a1cc? ([2001:420:2481:20:21b0:fbe9:76b4:a1cc]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x6sm21275296qas.27.2014.08.29.04.12.45 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Aug 2014 04:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1D25EE7-9B6F-47BD-9D39-3EC8B9288D98@iab.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:12:43 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <49EFDAD1-D7A3-4A6D-A2E3-AF603671B1CF@gmail.com>
References: <D1D25EE7-9B6F-47BD-9D39-3EC8B9288D98@iab.org>
To: IAB <iab@iab.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/smartobjectdir/IH3c69MAkDaLT9jmHVULWMfw5qQ
Cc: IETF SmartObjectDir <smartobjectdir@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, IETF Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [smartobjectdir] Call for Review of draft-iab-smart-object-architecture-04.txt, "Architectural Considerations in Smart Object Networking"
X-BeenThere: smartobjectdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <smartobjectdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/smartobjectdir>, <mailto:smartobjectdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/smartobjectdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:smartobjectdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:smartobjectdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smartobjectdir>, <mailto:smartobjectdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:12:50 -0000

The security section is especially handwavey ... especially considering security is probably more important for smart objects while there are fewer resources available for implementing security in smart objects than elsewhere.

Here's a useful take on the security issue that might provide some guidance for additional tet in the security section: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ace/trac/wiki/Questions

If the IAB is not prepared to undertake recommendations on security at this time, in my opinion security should be tagged as a topic for future work in addition to the pointers to earlier work.

- Ralph

On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:18 PM 8/27/14, IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org>; wrote:

> This is a call for review of "Architectural Considerations in Smart Object Networking" prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC.
> 
> The document is available for inspection here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-smart-object-architecture/
> 
> The Call for Review will last until 24 September 2014.  Please send comments to iab@iab.org.
> 
> On behalf of the IAB,
>   Russ Housley
>   IAB Chair
>