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

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 22:41:16 -0700

it has to be shipped with a secure default
   configuration (which includes no default accounts, no debugging
   interfaces enabled, etc.),

The security considerations  section doesn't grapple with the problem of
bootstrapping or the establishment of trust, but does address the
question of default properties. under conditions where device are only
useful because they are connected those are not easily separable.

On 8/27/14 11:18 AM, IAB Chair 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 [email-masked].
> 
> On behalf of the IAB,
>    Russ Housley
>    IAB Chair
> 
>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 17:04:18 -0400

IAB Chair <[email-masked]> 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

I read it.

I found nothing surprising in it.  I also didn't find anything to disagree
with, but on the other hand, I am not sure I found anything specific that I
could disagree with.

I think it is a nice document, and details some useful network patterns,
so in that, it is very useful.   Are there any other patterns that we missed?
I can't think of any.  I did say that in the Device-to-Device pattern,
that there was some implicit assumption that the wireless network was a
single hop, and had no routers, and therefore devices/manufacturers have to
agree on a layer 1/2.   The ability to route is later mentioned in other
sections.

I would have liked better (cooler...) terms for sections 2.1/2.2./2.3/2.4,
but I don't have any to offer.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 17:07:40 -0400

George, Wes <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > I don't believe that smart object networking is viable at any real scale
    > without IPv6. There simply aren't enough addresses, even taking into
    > account RFC1918. I see this *today* in my own network with deployments

I read the document before the thread replying.
I agree with you, to the point where I didn't think any smart object systems
could operate without IPv6.  In other words, I assumed every instance of "IP"
meant "IPv6"
(I also wondered how many IPv6 capable CPE routers pass DCCP/SCTP)