Skip to main content

You're viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.

IoT Working Group Minutes - RIPE 75

24 October 2017, 14:00-15:30
Co-Chairs: TBD - session led by Marco Hogewoning
Scribe: Alex Semenyaka
Status: Draft 

A. Administrative Matters

Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC

The presentation is available at:

There was no discussion.

B. “Update on Internet of Things Meeting in Leeds”

Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC

The presentation is available at:

There was no discussion.

C. “Discussion on Future Work and Draft Charter”

Marco Hogewoning, RIPE NCC

The presentation is available at:

At the beginning Marco explained the IETF practice of humming for the consensus evaluation.

Marco proposed to discuss two comments on project of the charter: 1) addition of “with other organisations” after words “To serve as a focal point for the RIPE NCC regarding community input to their IoT activities, including liaisons”, 2) removal of the wording “operational and beyond” after words “To develop positions of the RIPE community on IoT matters”.

Ruediger Volk, Deutsche Telekom questioned whether IoT players like car manufacturers would be able to establish liaisons within the RIPE IoT WG.

Marco asked Ruediger to clarify if he had expressed the skepticism about the charter of the creation of WG itself.

Ruediger answered that he expressed the general skepticism.

Jim Reid (“DNS guy from Scotland”) noted that Ruediger overstated the case, adding that the RIPE NCC would have to speak to different organisations, especially standards bodies and entities like Europol, EU Commission etc. He said that IoT WG needs flexibility for future and supported the first proposition.

Marco proposed to hum for and against the second change, and most of the audience hummed for dropping.

Peter Koch, DENIC eG said that the cooperation with standardisation groups like ITU SG20 is far away from operational, and such activities should fall under the charter.

Marco answered that he is fine both to leave and to drop the wording and proposed to hum again. He got no consensus, so proposed to leave it to the mailing list to sort out it by Thursday.

Jim Reid noted that the decision has to be taken during the session, because that is the main goal of providing the slot to it. He proposed to leave the wording.

Daniel Karrenberg, RIPE NCC, proposed to drop it because without mentioning the kind of matters, IoT WG will not be limited to operational or other aspects. Marco agreed and proposed to hum for this proposition. This time he got the consensus from audience to drop “operational and beyond” piece.

After that Marco stated that the charter is ready.

Jim Reid nominated himself for the WG Chair position. Marco accepted that nomination and asked Jim to suggest a co-chair if the audience supported Jim’s candidacy. Jim replied that there were several people expressing interest, including Anna Wilson from HEAnet.

Jim also proposed to start the discussion of the selection process and the mechanisms. He mentioned that he does not like voting in open community organisations, but it is necessary to be able to make a decision.

Marco answered that there are two options, voting or drawing lots.

Jim noted that drawing lots could be used to overcome voting deadlock, and there are also other options, and IoT WG members should select the most appropriate for them.

Brian Nisbet, HEAnet, said that he dreams of the same procedures for all RIPE Working Groups, and expressed the opinion that drawing lots should be never used, and the ideal solution is getting the consensus of the WG.

Hans Petter Holen, RIPE Chair, said that he challenged all WG Chairs to established one common procedure.

Marco proposed to determine which practice is more widespread now, and to extended it to all WG. Brian disagreed from the floor.

Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training and Consulting GmbH, proposed to select the simplest procedure at the moment since it could be changed later.

Marco supported that, but said the as a RIPE NCC staff member he had no position on what should be chosen.

Jan Zorz, Internet Society, asked if the decision could be postponed.

Marco explained that it could be diverted but expressed confidence that consensus could be established during the session.

Jan Zorz said he does not like drawing lots because it is not a conscious decision.

Marco concluded that the RIPE community will take the decision at Thursday and urged the audience to join the mailing list.

Jim Reid thanked Marco for all the work he did for this WG.

D. Update on Online Trust Alliance (OTA)

Kevin Meynell, Internet Society

The presentation is available at:

An attendee shared his thoughts of two key problems of IoT. He said that the first one is that people buying IoT devices are not completely own it because usually there is no local API and the functioning strongly depends on the some vendor’s cloud. Then he noted that the second key problem is that the most of the devices still do not support IPv6. The attendee asked how these problems to be addressed.

Answering to the first point, Kevin admitted that things are obvious only when discussing the subscription model. He agreed that the question of the ownership of data is not resolved yet.
Concerning the second problem, Kevin supported the attendee but mentioned that he cannot answer that.

E. Trusted Routing in the Internet of Things

Ivana Tomic , Imperial College London

The presentation is available at:

Salam Yamout, RIPE NCC Executive Board, asked about the convergence speed in the model presented.

Ivana answered that it takes usually up to 20, but never more than 40 seconds to detect malicious activity and react.

Jim Reid asked how this scheme is scaling to the large number of objects.

Ivana explained that they tested it with 100 nodes in the test bed and 200 nodes in the simulator, right now she has no data of further scaling.

Filippe Duke, Netassist, asked if Ivana has studied the attack not on the infrastructure but to the endpoint with poisoned data.

Ivana explained that it is out of the scope of their model.

F. Key Factors for the Successful Entry of Developing Countries into the Internet of Things

Farzad Ebrahimi, Internet of Things Academy of Iran

The presentation is available at:

Marco asked if there was anybody outside of Iran who initiated similar activities. He got no answer.

Filippe asked about the readiness of governments to support IoT development. He also got no answer.