[iot-wg] work on revised IoT BCOP
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-wg] [BCOP] Adressing Thread & Matter for IoT
- Next message (by thread): [iot-wg] work on revised IoT BCOP
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael Richardson
mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Thu Mar 23 19:40:29 CET 2023
In a thread that I lost, Peter asked: > since the IoT WG released it's first BCOP document [1] some time has > passed. Several technologies discussed in the document – i.e. DPP, USP – > have become mandatory for large carriers and can be found the majority of > their roadmaps. That's really news to me. I guess maybe this is about USP more than it is about DPP. I'm unware that DPP has become mandatory. As for the USP (TR-369), I'd like to know more: it's quite a fungible spec, and what part exactly has become mandatory, and what transports? In our BCOP, we said we needed a standard phone/browser <-> home gateway API such that we could have innovation at the edge. (Right now, it's a market vertical with a new app for every home gateway) So I'd love to have some discussion, maybe there are even presentations, about where we are here. > Recent talks with carriers revealed that all intend to increase their > efforts in managing IoT devices in their customer's homes or start such > efforts. All of them refer to Thread [2] and Matter [3] as the technologies > of choice – which makes sense given that at these standards increase > compatibility and are backed up by large players like Google, Amazon & > Apple. Since Thread is based upon IPv6 it offers new options and > possibilities to integrate with existing network infrastructure an > standards. Nevetheless it also requires re-evaluation of threats and attack > vectors in such networks. yes, but I think that the carriers are gonna find that they have some serious privacy implications if they get involved. I think that it is gonna bite Google and Apple and Amazon too. > I would like to initiate work on a follow-up BCOP document that centers > around the changes Thread and Matter do introduce to networks, but that > also takes into account our findings that got incorporated into the fist > BCOP document this WG has released. Especially the challenges regarding > onboarding and security in general remain the same and would be needed to > be evaluated in regards to the new technologies. One thing that might be useful is to have a Thread and Matter (they are different and also dependant) reference networks that we could play with in person at a future RIPE meeting. Probably too soon for Rotterdam, but maybe in the fall. (Wherever that will be) > An IPv6 based IoT networking protocol offers also new possibilities for > integrating IoT devices into networks and can change the way we look at > such networks. This should also be part of such a document. > I would like to ask the members of this WG about their opinion about these > considerations. And I also want to ask for volunteers to work an such a new > BCOP document and would be glad to initiate and manage the process. In general, I think that it's too soon to say anything useful in a new document in 2023, but that we should be spending some time understanding what's going on. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 515 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/iot-wg/attachments/20230323/ca6f07ed/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-wg] [BCOP] Adressing Thread & Matter for IoT
- Next message (by thread): [iot-wg] work on revised IoT BCOP
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ iot-wg Archives ]