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(a)sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
