Skip to main content

IoT Working Group Minutes RIPE 88

Date: 22 May 2024, 11:00 – 12:30 (UTC+2)
Co-Chairs: Peter Steinhaeuser, Peter Wehrle
Scribe: William Johnson
Status: Draft

View the recordings

View the stenography transcripts

View the chat logs

A. Introduction & Housekeeping

Peter Wehrle

The presentation is available at:

Peter Wehrle introduced himself and welcomed everyone to the session and then added that Peter Steinhaeuser is currently on a business trip in the US and that he will hopefully still be joining despite the time difference. He then went into housekeeping and provided an overview of the agenda, highlighting the presenters including Eric, Poonam was presenting at the RIPE meeting for the first time and Jad. 

Next, he announced that there was going to be a co-chair selection and that the voting would be available via a poll on Meetecho.

Peter gave an overview of the candidates and then went over the procedure for people to participate and then asked if anyone had questions. There was no response, so he introduced Eric van Uden as the first presenter.

B. BBF IoT Operator Activities

Eric van Uden

The presentation is available at:

Eric van Uden began his presentation and discussed what makes up the User Services Platform and then introduced Matter (a smart home protocol) he then elaborated on details, specifications and considerations regarding the protocol.

Hugo Regibo asked a question regarding the technical scheme presented. The slide showed a layer of IPv6, but he wanted to know if it also supported IPv4?

Eric responded saying that he was correct and that all communication (on CSA Matter) goes over IPv6, not IPv4.

Peter Wehrle read a question from the chat from Maarten Botterman asking for Matter development if there had been a privacy impact assessment or at least a commitment regarding this.

Eric responded saying this was the topic he was aiming for. Currently when the customer is activating their device they have an opt-in option, asking if they allow the operator to see or control the devices. He felt this will be the most common case and that the customer will have some way of allowing the operator to see what is happening on the devices in their home.

C. Identifying Security Weaknesses in Thread Networks for the Internet of Things (IoT)

Poonam Yadav

The presentation is available at:

Poonam introduced her research group SYSTRON Lab and presented on their research which investigated IoT protocol vulnerabilities, Iot device fingerprinting and detecting abnormal behavioural changes of IoT devices in networks due to attacks or internal faults. She shows the thread network testbed her group created to evaluate various characteristics and vulnerabilities and then elaborates on the research findings from their experimentation.

Peter Wehrle said that Peter Steinhaeuser was available online but was still having trouble coming in and then he read a question online from Michael Richardson who mentioned that thread 802.15.4 networks are usually encrypted as layer two and then asked if the OpenSniffer needed to know the layer two encryption key.

Poonam responded that no, the OpenSniffer was just doing physical layer framing so it was not looking at Layer 2 and did not need to know the Layer 2 encryption.

D. RIPE NCC IoT Update

Jad El Cham

The presentation is available at:

Jad presented on Iot trends, regulations and opportunities for capacity building. The talk covered various emerging technologies that could expand IoT connectivity as well as the implications of AI for processing IoT data. He continued by discussing legislations scheduled to pass or take effect in the EU, US and the UK in 2024 that will have implications for network operators in the RIPE region and beyond. He closed his discussion by asking for feedback about IoT training topics that are important to the community.

Peter Steinhaeuser appeared remotely, greeted everyone and then opened the floor for questions.

Niall O’Reilly, RIPE vice-chair, asked if the RIPE NCC L&D considered making more of the learning opportunities accessible to the wider community and not just members.

Jad responded that yes, the webinars and online courses are now accessible to anyone and they are working to make things more accessible while still managing their resources effectively.

Peter Steinhaeuser read a question from Maarten Botterman asking what was happening to minimise the carbon footprint, if it was already considered in the design process for energy used, material used and longevity of devices.

Jad said he could only provide a partial answer and responded that one of the incentives introduce the red cap connectivity options with the releases 17 and 18 that allow the same peak rates but with lower energy consumption and this could be geared towards more sustainability but he did not have much to add for reducing the net carbon footprint within the IoT space itself.

E. IoT Working Group Chair Selection

Peter Wehrle

The presentation is available at:

Peter Wehrle introduced the final agenda point regarding the IoT WG Co-Chair selection. He listed the volunteers: David Schweizer, Peter Steinhauser and Andrei Kolesnikov and mentioned they would have an opportunity for a small greeting before closing.

Jim Reid brought up his concern and disappointment with the co-chair selection being decided by a Meetecho poll and that the working group policy is to decide things by consensus in the mailing list and he felt the Meetecho poll was a violation of this and would discriminate against people who do not or cannot use Meetecho.

Peter Wehrle thanked him for his input and then opened for more questions before answering.

Martin Winter, Co-Chair Open-Source working group, objected to the use of the mailing list and referred to an occasion it caused issues in his own group.

Peter Wehrle mentioned there was not much activity in the mailing list and that it was difficult to get a selection done in the group so this time they tried to use participation in person to get it done and that the process may continue to evolve in the future.

Jim Reid said that they have a documented selection procedure that states they make decisions by consensus and he didn’t know why they have deviated from that procedure. He felt that coming to a decision based on votes in this manner was wrong and limited participation.

Peter Wehrle responded by saying this was published beforehand on the 7th of April, the candidates had an opportunity to add their input on the mailing list and there was a choice to get the selection done on Meetecho so that was how they were going to be collecting the votes now. He suggested they could continue the conversation in a session with Mirjam Kühne the following day with other working group chairs to see how they can develop the process further.

David Schweizer introduced himself as someone who worked for the Network Device Education Foundation and then discussed his interest in IoT, devices and firmware and his interest in the security, data protection and privacy for users of those devices. He acknowledged they were short on time and invited those present to ask him questions in the hall if they had any.

Andrei Kolesnikov introduced himself as the director of the IoT Association in Russia. He mentioned he posted his bio in the mailing list and then he touched on his experience and areas he would like to focus on with the group.

Peter Wehrle said the voting was coming down to a close and then thanked the participants and reminded everyone that they did not need to be a Chair to contribute to the group and invited everyone to participate.

Niall O’Reilly asked for clarification about how many vacancies there were.

Peter Wehrle responded that Peter Steinhaeuser's term had come to an end and now there were three candidates for one vacancy.

He then said it was time to look at the results of the poll and read that there were eight supporters for Peter, Three for Andrei and one for David so Peter Steinhauser would continue as Co-Chair for the working group and then mentioned that his own term would be up in the following year and people would have another chance to run then, in the meantime he invited David and Andrei to continue sharing their thoughts and putting their work into the group.

Peter Steinhaeuser thanked the attendees and then wanted to comment on Jim’s remarks by saying they should take his concerns very seriously, that the discussion about the selection procedure could have been handled better on the mailing list and he then apologised for not doing things the correct way.

Jim Reid said there was no need to apologise he just wanted to point out that if the working group wanted to change their procedure they were free to do that as long as they come to a consensus for the new appointment mechanism. He said he had no strong feelings on how the group should do it in the future but if they have a procedure then they should follow it until it needs to change.

Peter Wehrle thanked Jim for his feedback and then reiterated that they would discuss more the following day in the Working Group meeting and he encouraged everyone to share their ideas with the group so they could develop it together. He then thanked everyone again and closed the session.