Re: [solace] Slides posted for SAAG heads-up

[Rene Struik <[e-mail]>]

Hi all:

I was just commenting on discussion points to be presented with saag 
tomorrow and not trying to get into position-based arguing techniques on 
which scenario is "right" or "wrong". I presented a scenario that has 
proved highly relevant to a community with deep pockets (oil and gas 
industry, fast-moving consumer goods) and that is actionable 
(sufficiently concrete description to plot potential ways to accommodate 
this).

I do not want to get into any discussion whether someone else's 
foreclosed home property with divorced parents (out of this world, in 
Asian context, me thinks) scenario would be more appropriate. To address 
security needs for internet of things scenarios, one simply has to 
distill the technical triggers on devices and network elements and see 
how to accommodate any state transition appropriately (not that hard, in 
my own experience).

I would be happy if, after years, the topic area of trust lifecycle 
management for highly constrained networks would find a good home *and* 
would address the predominant technical topics required to lay a solid 
foundation towards this. If this would be the outcome, I would be happy 
to contribute. Hence, my note.

Have a good meeting.

Rene


On 11/7/2012 7:34 PM, Robert Cragie wrote:
> I think the point is you could choose any number of scenarios and 
> providing they are well-researched and understood, any of them would 
> serve as a starting point. Where it starts to go wrong IMHO is trying 
> to start with a number of disparate scenarios and in the first 
> analysis phase trying to distil some common understanding and 
> architecture from all of them. I think it makes more sense to start 
> with one and I think that Carsten's suggestion is more representative 
> of the challenges facing device lifecycle and is therefore a good 
> starting point.
>
> I would then move forward in an incremental fashion whereby at each 
> increment we:
>
>  1. Introduce a new scenarios
>  2. Aim to describe it using the architectural concepts developed for
>     the previous scenarios
>  3. Refine the architectural concepts
>
> Robert
>
> On 07/11/2012 11:36 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2012, at 18:29, Rene Struik<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>>
>>> industrial control
>> Too easy.
>>
>> This is usually a highly controlled environment, where there already are defined business relationships.
>>
>> Try a home occupied with a family with a 13-year old son, where the lifecycle later involves, say, a divorce and a foreclosure.
>>
>> (I like the industrial scenario, but I think we should do that later.)
>>
>> Grüße, Carsten
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> solace mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/solace
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> solace mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/solace


-- 
email: [e-mail] | Skype: rstruik
cell: [phone] | US: [phone]