- iot-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE 82 IoT session Agenda and other business
by Constanze Dietrich 10 May '21

10 May '21

Hi everyone! --> I'm happy to announce the following *agenda for RIPE 82, May 20th, 1-2 pm CET*: - Introduction & Housekeeping - Scalable Detection of IoT Devices in the Wild (Said Jawad Saidi, MPI-Informatics) - Implementation of IoT SAFE using a Registry (Natasha D'Souza, CIRA) - IoT WG Survey Results --> We're also trying to arrange another *IoT-WG-and-friends get-together on Monday evening, 7 pm*, using Spatial Chat. The details will be shared here. --> As to the *co-chair decision*, I'd really appreciate a little *more feedback from the WG*! Keep in mind that you can voice support for more than just one candidate -- Sandoche AND / OR Peter. :) Cheers! Constanze

1 0

ACM SIGCOMM HotNets'21
by Aaron Ding 09 May '21

09 May '21

IoT WG colleagues, the upcoming ACM SIGCOMM HotNets is looking forward to your submissions: https://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2021/cfp.html We invite researchers and practitioners to submit short position papers. We encourage papers that identify fundamental open questions, advocate a new approach, offer a constructive critique of the state of networking research, re-frame or debunk existing work, report unexpected early results from a deployment, report on promising but unproven ideas, or propose new evaluation methods. Novel ideas need not be supported by full evaluations; well-reasoned arguments or preliminary evaluations can support the possibility of the paper’s claims. We seek early-stage work, where the authors can benefit from community feedback. An ideal submission has the potential to open a line of inquiry for the community that results in multiple conference papers in related venues (SIGCOMM, NSDI, CoNEXT, SOSP, OSDI, MobiCom, MobiSys, etc.), rather than a single follow-on conference paper. The program committee will explicitly favor early work and papers likely to stimulate reflection and discussion over “conference papers in miniature”. Finished work that fits in a short paper is likely a better fit with the short-paper tracks at either CoNEXT or IMC, for example. Submission and Formatting Submitted papers must be no longer than 6 pages (10 point font, 12 point leading, 7 inch by 9.25 inch text block) including all content except references. There are no limits for reference pages. The archive (https://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2021/hotnets21-template.zip) contains a LaTeX class file that follows the prescribed submission format and an example of a paper formatted using that class. All submissions must be blind: they must not indicate the names or affiliations of the authors in the paper. Only electronic submissions in PDF will be accepted. Submissions must be written in English, render without error using standard tools (e.g., Acrobat Reader), and print on US Letter paper. Papers must contain novel ideas and must differ significantly in content from previously published papers. Submit your papers on the HotNets'21 HotCRP: https://hotnets21.hotcrp.com/ Important Dates Abstract deadline: June 18, 2021 (6 pm EDT) Paper submission deadline: June 25, 2021 (6 pm EDT) Notification: August 27, 2021 Workshop: November 10-12, 2021 General Chairs Andrew Moore (Cambridge) Srinivasan Keshav (Cambridge) Program Chairs Minlan Yu (Harvard) Laurent Vanbever (ETH Zurich) Publicity Chair Aaron Ding (TU Delft) Publications Chair Gianni Antichi (Queen Mary University London) Program Committee Amin Vahdat (Google) Anees Shaikh (Google) Anja Feldmann (MPI) Aurojit Panda (NYU) Behnaz Arzani (Microsoft Research) Brighten Godfrey (UIUC and VMware) Bruce Maggs (Duke University, Emerald Innovations and MIT) Chunyi Peng (Purdue University) Costin Raiciu (University Politehnica of Bucharest) Dongsu Han (KAIST) Ellen Zegura (Georgia Institute of Technology) Fadel Adib (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Junchen Jiang (University of Chicago) Kai Chen (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) Kyle Jamieson (Princeton) Larry Peterson (Open Networking Foundation) Michael Schapira (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Mina Tahmasbi Arashloo (Cornell University) Nick Feamster (University of Chicago) Ori Rottenstreich (Technion) Paolo Costa (Microsoft Research) Peter Steenkiste (CMU) Phillipa Gill (Google) Radhika Niranjan Mysore (VMWare) Rajalakshmi Nandakumar (Cornell Tech) Ratul Mahajan (University of Washington, Intentionet) Srinivas Narayana (Rutgers University) Xin Jin (Peking University) Ying Zhang (Facebook) Zafar Ayyub Qazi (LUMS) [cid:9fd28856-46dd-42e8-84a8-fc2750e6f1f5] Cheers, Aaron

1 0

Re: [iot-wg] RIPE 82 - IoT WG
by sandoche Balakrichenan 09 May '21

09 May '21

Hi Martina, Thanks for the mail and we will forward the information to the speakers. Sandoche. On 09/05/2021 16:50, RIPE NCC Event Team wrote: > Hello IoT WG Chairs, > > This is to confirm that so far, we have scheduled Meetecho training > sessions with the following speakers: > > - Said Jawad Saidi(IoT-wg) > - Anna Maria Mandalari (IoT-wg) > - Natasha D'Souza (IoT-wg) > > Let us know if more speakers are expected. > > Also, please remind your speakers about the following important points: > > - All speakers (and chairs) are required to register for the meeting. > Without registration, they won't be able to access Meetecho. They can > register at the following link: > https://ripe82.ripe.net/attend/register/ > > - The final presentation uploading system is online. Deadline to > upload final presentations is at least one day before the presentation > is scheduled: > https://ripe82.ripe.net/presentations/upload-presentation/ > > --------- > Mattermost > --------- > To join the RIPE NCC public Mattermost chat, Speakers (and Session > Chairs) can use the following link to create an account: > > https://mattermost.ripe.net/signup_user_complete/?id=3ep6epxwfjfadxeawdjsw5… > > > If they already have an account, they can: > - Visit https://mattermost.ripe.net/ncc-public-chat to use the web > interface > - or download the client here https://mattermost.com/download/ and log > in with their account > > By default, everyone will join the ‘RIPE Meeting Lobby’ channel. > Everyone is allowed to create new channels from there, by clicking the > ‘+’ button above the channel list. > > To notify the entire RIPE Meeting tech team, you can use the tag > @techteam. > > ---- > Last but note least, please send to <meeting(a)ripe.net> the IoT WG > agenda so we can publish it on the website. > > Let me know if you have any questions and/or need any clarifications. > > Best regards, > Martina > > -- Sandoche BALAKRICHENAN Head of R&D Partnerships @ Afnic LoRaWAN Academia WG Chair & RIPE IoT WG Co-Chair

1 0

FW: [ripe-list] Community Wellbeing Survey
by sandoche Balakrichenan 04 May '21

04 May '21

Dear all, RIPE appreciates your feedback to the below mail which has been sent to the RIPE mailing list. Kind regards, sandoche -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: FW: [ripe-list] Community Wellbeing Survey Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 08:13:49 +0000 From: Erik Bais <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com> To: wg-chairs(a)ripe.net <wg-chairs(a)ripe.net>, Mirjam Kuehne <mir(a)zu-hause.nl> *From: *ripe-list <ripe-list-bounces(a)ripe.net> on behalf of Erik Bais <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com> *Date: *Friday 30 April 2021 at 17:59 *To: *ripe-list <ripe-list(a)ripe.net> *Cc: *Erik Bais <erik(a)bais.name> *Subject: *[ripe-list] Community Wellbeing Survey Dear RIPE Community, A couple months ago we began discussing in a small group the challenges around personal mental wellbeing in the RIPE community and how we could potentially investigate the issue and what we could potentially put in place to make things better. One outcome of that was the development of a questionnaire around how the community is coping in the current Covid-19 era. ( The questionnaire is here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JPNJG57 <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JPNJG57> ) Participating in this is a personal decision for you but we do appreciate your feedback, either via the questionnaire or other means. As some of you may know, I did a presentation in 2019 at the Dutch Network Operator Group ( NLNOG ) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7areInUXbyo <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7areInUXbyo> about working in a toxic work environment and the risks of running into a burnout. This topic, ( having a burnout . .the risks and being able to talk about this in groups of small peers or even in public ) is in many countries and communities still a taboo topic. Based on the experiences that we have from that presentation and what it did for the people in the Dutch NLNOG community.. and providing a safe place for people to talk and discuss about this.. We decided that we also would like to see what the current state is in the larger community .. and start with a questionnaire on the topic. The feedback and results of the questionnaire ( and your input is highly appreciated if you participate ) will be looked at and I will do a presentation in a plenary at RIPE82 in a couple weeks. The goal is to see if we as a RIPE community need to provide similar ways for people in our region to (anonymously) be able to communicate about various topics that may or may not be directly work related. It could be that we need to have a place where we can discuss about the situation working remote .. not being able to go to the office.. the additional stress that this brings .. or that we need to talk about what all those additional social distancing rules bring to you.. or how you feel about these rules.. for some it is a blessing .. and for some it works like a new stress factor as the rules are changing per shop / public store / building .. and some of us like to have nice and clear directions .. But also about how people deal with the lockdowns .. and don’t get to meet other people that have a similar interest .. or a relation .. So what we like to see is how are you feeling .. how are you coping .. or not .. And then the question comes .. can we help .. and how I’m aware that I’m currently the one that is pushing this as a topic in public (and here for instance) .. but I’m very aware of the group of great people that helped to get this initiative and questionnaire to a state as where it is today. And I would especially like to thank Eileen (INEX), Mirjam ( RIPE Chair ), Carolien (NCC HR) , Alastair ( NCC ), Ulka ( NCC ) Alun ( NCC ), Vesna ( NCC - for her mad Wiki and notary skills ) and the people assisting in reviewing the questionnaire already for us. We like to get the information before May 11th 2021, so that we have some time to look at the results and prep the ppt for the week of the RIPE82 meeting. The data itself will be stored for max 2 weeks after that.. and only 1 admin from the NCC and the HR manager of the NCC will have access to the data, besides myself. As we use the NCC survey monkey account for the questionnaire. All questions can be skipped if you don’t feel like you want to answer a specific question. And feel free to reply here on the list .. or reach out to Mirjam, Eileen (both in CC: ) or myself in private if needed. We are planning a bit larger support group once we are done with the RIPE82 meeting on this. To minimize tracking by Survey Monkey .. You can paste the questionnaire URL in an incognito window.. The questionnaire is here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JPNJG57 <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JPNJG57> Thank you all in advance and see you all at RIPE82. Kind regards, Erik Bais -- Sandoche BALAKRICHENAN Head of R&D Partnerships @ Afnic LoRaWAN Academia WG Chair & RIPE IoT WG Co-Chair

1 0

PUBLISHED: Architectural Considerations for IoT Device Security in the Home (ripe-759)
by Constanze Dietrich 30 Apr '21

30 Apr '21

Hi everyone! The joint effort of Eliot Lear, Michael Richardson, Phil Stanhope, Peter Steinhäuser, Jelte Jansen, Jan Žorž and Sandoche Balakrichenan (and former IoT WG co-chair Jim Reid who prefers to remain unmentioned... whoops.) has been published! https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-759 Thanks for the great work! Cheers Constanze

1 0

Re: [iot-wg] [IoT WG Focus]
by Constanze Dietrich 23 Apr '21

23 Apr '21

Hi Peter! I think that's a great idea! Indeed, finding overlaps and ways to collaborate with other WGs was one of the ideas of the survey. I had posted it to the RIPE general mailing list as well but have only gotten very few responses from non-members (Btw... 11 responses from IoT WG members -- also not quite the quota I had hoped we'd be looking at...). In the back of my head, opportunities to work together are still best discussed in person over beverages, but I'd be happy to see IoT WG members sharing the link on other WG lists to get some more feedback before RIPE 82 (and thus, possibly more ideas to be discussed in the slot Sandoche and I saved for the results in the session agenda)! Cheers! Constanze > > > *Von: *Peter Steinhäuser <ps(a)embedd.com> > > *Betreff: Aw: [iot-wg] [IoT WG Focus]* > > *Datum: *23. April 2021 um 15:49:50 MESZ > > *An: *sandoche Balakrichenan <sandoche.balakrichenan(a)afnic.fr> > > *Kopie: *IoT WG RIPE <iot-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > > Dear Sandoche, > > > > I am totally on your page on keeping the charter wide - it was not my > intention to open an discussion about this. > > > > Nevertheless to find out topics of interest for the group we also could > think about asking other WGs about sharing the survey to gather more > feedback (?) > > > > - Peter > > > > Am 22.04.2021 um 16:36 schrieb sandoche Balakrichenan < > sandoche.balakrichenan(a)afnic.fr>: > > > > Dear Peter, > > I completely agree with your views that the WG is not as active. > > The charter scope was the line of discussion, when the WG was formed : > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/iot-wg/2017-November/subject.html#2… > > With Constanze, we have discussed means to identify the the WG members > requirements. Constanze had even sent a survey in this objective: > https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdVVq38C96Mn_Lv8eDgiHGzt3TgzPfx_MM… > > IMHO, we will keep the scope for the charter wide, but if there are > activities focusing on a particular domain, it is always positive. > > Sandoche. > > > > On 22/04/2021 14:34, Peter Steinhäuser wrote: > > Dear collegues, > > > > since this working group was founded I feel that it never really got > traction and struggled a bit to find it’s place in the RIPE community. Also > there is not much activity, despite the working group's chair’s and some > member’s efforts (hackathons, BCOP document, survey) to motivate WG members > to participate more actively. > > > > The WG’s charter covers a huge field of possible activities around IoT > while (to me it seems) other WG’s have more focus. I may be wrong but I > think that this lack of focus makes it more difficult for this WG to > organize joint activities. The majority of the activities of the > (technical) RIPE WG’s are centered around IP and IP based networks > therefore I think focusing on similar areas could help this WG to become a > more lively part of the RIPE community. > > > > An example could be analysis and research around the thread protocol of > the Project Connected Home over IP of the ZigBee Alliance. Based upon IPv6 > and with products from major players already shipping this could be one > possible field of activity that connects with other WG’s areas of expertise. > > > > I would be glad to hear your opinions! > > > > Thanks and best regards, > > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > > iot-wg mailing list > > iot-wg(a)ripe.net > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg > > -- > > Sandoche BALAKRICHENAN > > Head of R&D Partnerships @ Afnic > > LoRaWAN Academia WG Chair & RIPE IoT WG Co-Chair > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > iot-wg mailing list > iot-wg(a)ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg > > > > > > *Peter Steinhäuser, CEO* > embeDD GmbH · Alter Postplatz 2 · 6370 Stans · Switzerland > Phone: +41 (41) 784 95 85 · Fax: +41 (41) 784 95 64 > > > > >

1 0

[IoT WG Focus]
by Peter Steinhäuser 23 Apr '21

23 Apr '21

Dear collegues, since this working group was founded I feel that it never really got traction and struggled a bit to find it’s place in the RIPE community. Also there is not much activity, despite the working group's chair’s and some member’s efforts (hackathons, BCOP document, survey) to motivate WG members to participate more actively. The WG’s charter covers a huge field of possible activities around IoT while (to me it seems) other WG’s have more focus. I may be wrong but I think that this lack of focus makes it more difficult for this WG to organize joint activities. The majority of the activities of the (technical) RIPE WG’s are centered around IP and IP based networks therefore I think focusing on similar areas could help this WG to become a more lively part of the RIPE community. An example could be analysis and research around the thread protocol of the Project Connected Home over IP of the ZigBee Alliance. Based upon IPv6 and with products from major players already shipping this could be one possible field of activity that connects with other WG’s areas of expertise. I would be glad to hear your opinions! Thanks and best regards, Peter Peter Steinhäuser, CEO embeDD GmbH · Alter Postplatz 2 · 6370 Stans · Switzerland Phone: +41 (41) 784 95 85 · Fax: +41 (41) 784 95 64

2 2

Sandoche for co-chair
by Jetten Raymond 13 Apr '21

13 Apr '21

From: iot-wg <iot-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Constanze Dietrich Sent: tiistai 13. huhtikuuta 2021 13.00 To: iot-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [iot-wg] It's co-chair selection time! Again! I think Sandoche has done (just as you btw) a great job, i would like that he continuous as is now. Rgds, Ray Hi everyone! Sandoche's term as IoT WG co-chair is about to end with RIPE 82. Spoiler alert: He'll be standing again to serve another term, if the WG decides so. :) I want to encourage everyone interested in this role to get familiar with the WG co-chair responsibilities (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-692) and put themselves forward. Of course you can also nominate someone else, provided they're a WG member and up for the job. As I'll have to keep track and, after all, have to make a judgement on consensus, 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. Please note: We don't vote; meaning: You're absolutely free to support as many candidates as you want and see fit for the role. Provided there are no reasoned objections from the WG, I'd like to set the IoT WG session at RIPE82 as a deadline to make (and announce) the decision. If you'd like further information about the duties (and joys) as a co-chair -- especially in the context of RIPE Meetings -- don't hesitate to contact me or Sandoche. I'd be happy to share the information and observations collected over the past year. :) Have a nice day! Constanze For Internal Use Only

5 4

It's co-chair selection time! Again!
by Constanze Dietrich 13 Apr '21

13 Apr '21

Hi everyone! Sandoche's term as IoT WG co-chair is about to end with RIPE 82. Spoiler alert: He'll be standing again to serve another term, if the WG decides so. :) I want to encourage everyone interested in this role to get familiar with the WG co-chair responsibilities ( https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-692) and put themselves forward. Of course you can also nominate someone else, provided they're a WG member and up for the job. As I'll have to keep track and, after all, have to make a judgement on consensus, 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. Please note: We don't vote; meaning: You're absolutely free to support as many candidates as you want and see fit for the role. Provided there are no reasoned objections from the WG, I'd like to set the IoT WG session at RIPE82 as a deadline to make (and announce) the decision. If you'd like further information about the duties (and joys) as a co-chair -- especially in the context of RIPE Meetings -- don't hesitate to contact me or Sandoche. I'd be happy to share the information and observations collected over the past year. :) Have a nice day! Constanze

1 0

some experiences with deny-by-default for IoT devices
by Michael Richardson 29 Mar '21

29 Mar '21

The CIRALabs SHG project (https://www.cira.ca/labs/projects/cira-secure-home-gateway ) has been trying to get our systems into the hands of 50+ in-house alpha testers, but the pandemic has set us back: sorting people's network plumbing without visiting their house is a challenge. There will always be someone with something that just isn't wired up right, and non-technical people don't want to screw with their setup when they need it for minute-by-minute school work, etc. (Ironically, our home routers probably make their network better if wired right). So, our team has been onboarding devices and letting our SPIN/SHG hybrid system do analysis of the devices to form filtering policies. We have leant that this is harder than we'd like. For instance, I got a $20 Globe Suite single outlet back in December. It's in green so that it will match your Xmas-tree. https://globe-electric.com/en/product/globe-electric-wi-fi-smart-plug-no-hu… Our system is set up to accept new devices online, but to drop traffic from them by default until the administrator says, "okay". The device wants to put into onboarding mode by having a button held down for 5s, and then it flashes fast, and it is supposed to be discovereable by the phone. I'm unclear if it gets discovered by BT or via 2.4Ghz public frames. The app is repeatedly very specific: "Make sure you are on 2.4Ghz WIFI" My app just could not discover my device despite repeated attempts. No obvious errors, just "not there".... I went back to our SHG app, saw that in fact a new device was now present. (Yes, there is a bug with delays with Notifications that we haven't figured out yet). I then enabled access for this new device. NOW, I could onboard the device. Apparently, it attempts to join the WIFI, connect to Internet, and connect to the cloud, and if anything fails, then everything fails, and the device appears to not even be found! That's terrible UI. Now for the kicker: one might assume that the device is really controlled through the cloud then, right? So after plugging in a light to test it, and confirming I could turn it on and off with my phone, I turned wifi off on my phone, and tried to control it via LTE. What's the latency that way? Infinite, as I don't think it can be controlled via the Internet. Yes, you can onboard it to Siri,Alexa,Google Home, and I imagine you can control it that way. The device needs Internet to onboard, but doesn't apparently use it. Firmware updates? Maybe. The onboarding fails in less than human reaction time, so I could never actually enable access for the device via any kind of UI! -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(a)sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

1 0