- iot-wg - mailman.ripe.net

it's co-chair selection time!
by Jim Reid 16 May '22

16 May '22

My term as WG co-chair ends at RIPE80 or theresabouts. I will not be standing for another term. First of all, bringing in new and hopefully younger faces to freshen things up is long overdue. Second, I only volunteered to bootstrap the new WG. That has been completed. So it’s time to step away and let the WG find somebody else. There’s some info on WG co-chair responsibilities in RIPE692. Anyone interested in applying who wants more advice on what the job entails, likely time commitments and so on is welcome to contact Sandoche or myself. Or any other recent/current WG co-chair for that matter. I would also ask potential candidates to start a *new thread* -- eg "Your name for co-chair" or something like that -- when they post on the list so there are meaningful and relevant Subject: headers which make it easier to make a consensus judgement. It’ll save the current co-chairs reading every message on the mailing list to decide if they contain something in favour or against a particular candidate. This will also make it clearer for other members of the list to express their support (or not) for a candidate. Anyone can volunteer to become a co-chair and you can even nominate yourself. There’s no requirement to have N people nominating a candidate for them be considered for selection (for values of N > 1). Ideally, it would be good to be able to announce the new co-chair at RIPE80. Though that could be too short notice since the meeting’s just under 4 weeks away. If you think more time is needed to decide, please speak up. There’s no firm deadline and we should take our time about making this appointment - provided of course the new co-chair is in place in plenty of time for RIPE81. Although I think 4 weeks (ish) should be long enough to find a new co-chair, this is for the WG to decide too.

11 19

Re: [iot-wg] [Peter Steinhaeuser] for co-chair (fwd) Michael Richardson: Re: [Peter Steinhaeuser] for co-chair
by Michael Richardson 14 May '22

14 May '22

Peter Steinh=C3=A4user <ps(a)embedd.com> wrote: > I put my hat (again) into the ring and ask you to support me as a > candiate for co-chairing this WG. I am very supportive of Peter doing this! > I think that this WG is still trying to find it's place in the RIPE > community, the overall acitivity level has beend a bit low. Of course > the years of the pandemic and the lack of opportunities to meet in > person were not helpful. Nevertheless it seems that IoT is still > something that is often considered to live in the consumer space, and > also many carriers currently seem to have other priorities. I thik that these are astute observations. I really enjoyed the RIPE79 (Rotterdam) IoT hackathon. I think that there are interesting operational things that RIPE IoT WG could have deeper converations about. There will be a grandchild-of-HOMENET effo= rt at the IETF that might get called SNAC. It would be interesting to me to do some kind of *interop* testing of IoT systems and ISP systems. > As a WG chair I would focus working on connecting the ongoing > activities to form technical standards and reference implementations > for easy adoption by the industry. I would also work on advocating > those to industry players (i.e. via Broadband Forum & prpl Foundation= & > Telcom Infrastructure Project - TIP) to get broader support for these > activities as well. =20=20=20=20 > In my role as project manager for prplOS in the > prpl Foundation I also propose technologies for adoption & funding by > the prpl Foundation and it's members, as well as in the TIP project > where we contribute technology and solutions to the Open Coverged > Wireless WG (and recently started working on IoT integration as well). This kind of promotion of new open source systems and open-stand.org (standards) is really important to me as well. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(a)sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

1 0

RIPE 84 IoT WG Agenda
by sandoche Balakrichenan 13 May '22

13 May '22

Dear all, As you all know, the IoT WG session @RIPE 84 will be on Wednesday 18th May9:00 - 10:00 (UTC+2). The agenda looks as follows: * Introduction & House Keeping (5 mins) * Leandro Lanzieri (Hamburg University of Applied Sciences) – "Secure and Authorized Client-to-Client Communication for LwM2M" - (15 mins) * Tommy Haga (Helse Vest IKT) - "IoT encounters in Health Care Networks" (25 mins) * Jad El Cham – "RIPE NCC IoT Update 2022" (10 min) * Co-Chair announcement & AOB (5 mins) Thanks and kind regards, Constanze& Sandoche.

1 0

Call for volunteers or nominations for RIPE IoT Working Group co-chair
by sandoche Balakrichenan 13 May '22

13 May '22

Dear Colleagues As Constanze's term as IoT WG co-chair is about to end with RIPE 84, this is a call for nominations or volunteers to co-chair the RIPE IoT working group. *********************************************************************** Please DO NOT reply to this message if you wish to propose a volunteer. *********************************************************************** I would ask for each candidate to start a new thread with, e.g., "[name] for co-chair", and for members to utter their support by replying to the respective thread. Provided there are no reasoned objections from the WG, I'd like to set *May 16th* as a deadline for showing support on the mailing list, so that we can announce the decision on *18th May* during the IoT WG sesssion at RIPE 84. More information about WG co-chair responsibilities (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-692). If you'd like further information, don't hesitate to contact me or Constanze. Have a nice day! Sandoche

4 8

Re: [iot-wg] Call for volunteers or nominations for RIPE IoT Working Group co-chair
by Constanze Dietrich 14 Apr '22

14 Apr '22

Hi everyone! [Scroll down for the TL;DR] I am proud that so many of you trusted me to do a good job as co-chair two years ago and I'm happy that I was given the chance to move things forward together with Sandoche. I've also given the past two years some thought... While we could see some ideas for the WG in action, such as discussing a possible role of ISPs in securing (private) IoT networks, learning more about your individual interests and motivation in a survey and covering the governance side with Marco Hogewoning's regular updates, my main vision "to enable the members of the working group to get into an active exchange" had to be played in hard mode during the pandemic. With having to rely on merely virtual communication and meetings (and enterprises being focussed on a somewhat reliable delivery of their core services rather than advancing IoT technologies), I'd put it that way: Not all our strengths could be put into play in those two years. ;) Two years later, things are about to change again. With physical meetings in sight, I foresee much more interaction and motivation to engage in working groups such as ours, and while many enterprises face new challenges due to the war in Ukraine, some may actually pick up their IoT advances again... However, my professional environment has changed slowly but considerably since mid-2021 and it is unlikely that, for the time being, I'll be able to muster the time that the WG deserves and that the regular meetings require. Hence, I've decided to not stand again this time and let someone new take up the role as Sandoche's co-chair for now. (Sandoche, it's not you; it's me. ;) So... I encourage everyone interested to consider giving it a shot! It was a pleasure to chair the IoT WG sessions at the virtual RIPE meetings, but, honestly, I'm REALLY looking forward to the next meeting in my hometown Berlin and hope to see many of you there! :) _____________________________________ --> TL;DR: I won't stand again this time. As for Michael's remarks: In my opinion, I don't think one should end things during a crisis (which a pandemic undoubtedly is!) and that also applies to this working group. It would be a shame to close it, i.e. give it up, NOW. A few words regarding the selection process: After the call for volunteers yesterday, Mirjam suggested we might collect nominations off the list to avoid hesitation and (too) early support for the first volunteers. As that approach is backed by good experiences of other WGs, we could give it a shot. (Asking for opinions here... ;) Kind regards Constanze

1 0

Re: [iot-wg] Call for volunteers or nominations for RIPE IoT Working Group co-chair
by sandoche Balakrichenan 14 Apr '22

14 Apr '22

Hi Michael, On 13/04/2022 19:24, Michael Richardson wrote: > > I went to read the IoT WG charter wondering what it was we were supposed to > be doing in the first place :-) > > https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/iot says: > > The Internet of Things (IoT) Working Group will operate under the following charter: > > (1) To discuss challenges and opportunities of "IoT" for the RIPE community > (2) To serve as a focal point for the RIPE NCC regarding community input to > their IoT activities, including liaisons with other organisations > (3) To invite IoT communities for a dialogue on matters of operational > relevance, including security, the numbering system, and applicability of > standards > (4) To develop positions of the RIPE community on IoT matters > > {I numbered the points} > > I think that we've done a small bit of (4). > I don't think that we've done (2) at all. > On (1) and (3) we've done bit and pieces. ==> I agree with you that we have not been able to fulfill the charter requirements, even partially. With Constanze, we tried to engage the community by conducting surveys (to understand the community requirements), sending newsletter initially (so that discussion could be kick-started based on it) and even trying to have interim meetings. >

1 0

Call for Presentations [IoT WG session]
by sandoche Balakrichenan 12 Apr '22

12 Apr '22

Hi everyone! As you're probably already aware, RIPE 84 (https://ripe84.ripe.net/), we will be held from from May 16 to 20 in Berlin. It's an opportunity to meet you all after two years :-) The IoT WG session is scheduled on WEDNESDAY, 18th May, 9:00 to 10:00 CET If you have any presentation proposals, discussion topics, or something else that could be important and/or interesting for IoT enthusiasts and professionals in the RIPE community, please send a mail to <iot-wg-chairs@.ripe.net <http://ripe.net>>. We're looking forward to your ideas and proposals! :) Sandoche & Constanze --

1 0

Last call and final reminder for nominations to the 2022 Rob Blokzijl Award
by Carsten Schiefner 14 Mar '22

14 Mar '22

[Apologies for cross-posting to various RIPE lists] Dear IoT WG members - this is the last call and final reminder for nominations to the 2022 Rob Blokzijl Award that will be accepted until this Friday, 18th March, at 23:59 UTC. In seeking nominations for this prestigious award, which was created to celebrate Rob's contributions to the development of the Internet, the Award Committee (https://rob-blokzijl-foundation.org/2021/11/22/2022-award-committee/) is interested to receive nominations of those who have reflected Rob's approach in either a technical or operational capacity. Please give some consideration to nominating individuals - but also teams and groups of people! - in your own community and/or the wider industry in the RIPE region who, in your opinion, deserve to be recognised for their work to make the internet and/or internet community better. To specifically have this emphasised again after some according queries: nominations of teams and groups of people are very well possible and wished for as well in case their collective work would match the criteria of the call as laid out! The Award Committee is particularly interested to receive nominations of contributors who, in addition to their own contributions, have also supported and enabled others anywhere in the world. Also, the Award Committee would like to encourage those making nominations to consider not only the community members in the later stages of their careers or who are widely known but also those who may have contributed greatly in the springtime of their career or discreetly for the greater good or who may be considered to be part of an unrepresented group. And last but not least: those of you who previously have made a nomination other than Wilfried Woeber, the 2018 awardee, may want to consider resubmitting a nomination. The complete details of the call and the nomination process can be found at: https://rob-blokzijl-foundation.org/2021/11/25/call-for-nominations-2022/ Best wishes and kind regards Carsten (on behalf of the Award Committee)

1 0

what I'd want from DNS4EU
by Michael Richardson 01 Feb '22

01 Feb '22

I attended this "morning" (for me)'s discussion about DNS4EU. I don't know much about what the EC is put out in it's RFP as I don't live in the EU (..yet?) and aren't in a position to respond to it. Right now, people know about 8.8.8.8. They spray painted it on walls in Turkey a few years ago! Amateur network administrators, aka local teens, know that if someone is having problems with their device, that sticking 8.8.8.8 in sometimes helps. Many ISPs and many "pro-sumers" who configure their own home gateways will stick 8.8.8.8 in as a DNS server. I run my own recursive resolvers, but, on my desktop I have: nameserver 2607:f0b0:f::babe:f00d nameserver 209.87.249.18 nameserver 8.8.8.8 search sandelman.ca (The first two point to the same machine) Why? because sometimes shit happens, and that local VM is broken, and it's easier to use DNS to fix DNS. Yeah, I have breadcrumbs in my /etc/hosts too. So what I would like DNS4EU to do is to create a European hosted and operated alternative. It doesn't have to be run by a single entity. In fact, I think that this is a bad idea. But, it does have to have the same kind of "name" recognition as 8.8.8.8 (%) That might mean, literally, spray painting it on walls. Berlin people could hire 1UP crew maybe. It seems clear that this new resolver address will need to have multiple servers and and be anycasted. It could be run by a multitude of operators, with at least one per country. That solves the entire digital sovereignty issue, and the "local" denylist. a) This is where RIPE NCC starts to come in: find and allocate some memorable IPv4/24, and IPv6/48 for this. Let's call this R.R.R.R b) In order to run DoT, DoH, we need TLS certificates. If the system is anycast, and is run by a multitude of entities, then we need to be able to deploy certificates to a multitude of entities and each need to manage their own private keys. "dns.google" works because Google is a CA. (I didn't know that was the FQDN for it until I visited it just now) This is the second activity which RIPE NCC should be involved it: coordinating the certificates for the entities. How exactly to do this, technically, is an open question to me. There are many possible arrangements, including some new ones like RFC9060. c) The variety of entities running these servers need consistent and regular training. There is a further interesting thing to me, and that involves the IoT situations with DoT/DoH. There are three issues. 1) IoT devices that ignore the local resolver settings and try to use 8.8.8.8. This upsets many people (Vixie is loudest), because many of us have concerns about what the devices are doing. DoH makes it near impossible to observe. I have an IETF OPSAWG draft about DNS and MUD. There are privacy issues with the devices crossing national jurisdictions with their queries. I suspect GDPR ones, but I'm no lawyer. 2) Many would like to use DNS queries as canaries for malware on IoT devices. 3) Many would like to prevent IoT devices from being able to reach certain known malware sites. Recognize that when we allocate R.R.R.R, we get all of R.R.R.0/24 at least, and we could run a number of diffentiated services at R.R.R.I, etc. If R.R.R.I was promoted as a GDPR-safe place for IoT devices to send queries to, and if the canaries could be coordinated, then that would likely be a win for the security of the Internet. (Of course, making IoT devices pay attention to RDNSS and DHCP values would be my priority. But, return R.R.R.I to those IoT devices would make sense) (%) I know that 8.8.4.4 is also a google resolver, but I rarely use it. 1.1.1.1 is easier to remember. I can't remember the IPv6 for any of them offhand. Yet, I know sprint.net is http://[2600::] for instance. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] mcr(a)sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(a)sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

1 0

Happy New Year - 2022
by sandoche Balakrichenan 07 Jan '22

07 Jan '22

Dear all, Wish you all a Happy & Prosperous New year with good health and lots of success in your endeavors. We will have fruitful discussions in 2022 and importantly applying our work for the benefit of the Community. -- Sandoche BALAKRICHENAN As RIPE IoT WG Co-Chair

1 0