Re: [Spud] OS updates on embedded devices

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Christian Huitema <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 9, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Brian Trammell wrote
>>
>> What I take away from this tangent: avoiding certain types of badness is
>> probably a necessary function of any minimal common transport such as SPUD.
>> Which types of badness those are is a point for detailed discussion, but it
>> probably includes avoiding anything that looks like reflection or amplification,
>> and anything that looks like trivial state exhaustion, which we need to consider
>> very carefully in a protocol designed to make state establishment on path
>> explicit.
>>
>
> Agreed. In particular, "no worse than TCP" is a bit of a low bar. We need to be robust against packet injection attacks.
>
That is a good requirement which is directed more at the transport
layer itself rather than the middleboxes-DPI interaction. I don't see
that requirements like this are listed in the SPUD drafts, have they
been enumerated somewhere?

Thanks,
Tom

> As for IoT, did we not have a couple of IoT talks during the last IAB plenary? Most of what I read on this thread was presented here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-iab-techplenary-2.pdf. The discussion should probably move to an IoT specific list.
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>