Dear Jim, Congratulations to pass through this important milestone. Dear colleagues, I like to put forward my candidacy on WG co-chair. I bring an extensive experience in IOT system development from the industry and would like to take efforts in coordination and liaising between the RIPE and industry. I like to focus on standards being developed by different actors, and on compilation of those developments to bring it back to the community, to facilitate the ISPs, integrators and solution providers with recommended guidlines developed by those of the Parties. My background is in Microelectronics (undergrad) and Computer Engineering (graduate degree) from University of Southern California, having 30 more years industry experience working in Silicon Valley based high-tech companies, currently based in Armenia. Looking forward to work with you all with a common goal to make IOT more trustful and reliable infrastructure in the world. Thank you very much, Avetik ________________________________________ From: iot-wg <iot-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of iot-wg-request@ripe.net <iot-wg-request@ripe.net> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 3:00 PM To: iot-wg@ripe.net Subject: iot-wg Digest, Vol 21, Issue 1 Send iot-wg mailing list submissions to iot-wg@ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to iot-wg-request@ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at iot-wg-owner@ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of iot-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Consensus on WG Chair Selection process (Jim Reid) 2. appointing a co-chair (Jim Reid) 3. Re: appointing a co-chair (Peter Steinh?user) 4. Re: appointing a co-chair (T?ma Gavrichenkov) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 06:19:52 +0000 From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> To: RIPE IoT WG <iot-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [iot-wg] Consensus on WG Chair Selection process Message-ID: <2083A05E-DB01-4E77-93B9-415F13054466@rfc1035.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii It's time to declare victory. So that's what I am doing. :-) IMO we have consensus and enough support for the selection process. My thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion. There is one small tweak to the original text. Peter Koch suggested a clarification which got rid of an ambiguity: replacing "longest-serving co-chair" with "co-chair whose term is up". That's reflected in the text below. I will ask the NCC to put this on the WG's home page and also turn it into a RIPE document. (1) The IoT WG will have 2 co-chairs who serve staggered 2-year terms. (2) A co-chair cannot serve more than 3 consecutive terms. (3) Each year, the co-chair whose term is up will stand down and subject to (2) may make themselves available for re-appointment. (4) The incoming co-chair will be chosen by the WG using consensus and the remaining co-chair will make the consensus determination. (5) Any circumstances not covered by the above will be resolved by the RIPE Chair whose decision will be final. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 06:43:02 +0000 From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> To: RIPE IoT WG <iot-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [iot-wg] appointing a co-chair Message-ID: <10A90F2C-F56B-4FA2-8047-F444B181CCD0@rfc1035.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, start your engines! :-) Since the WG now has an appointment process in place, it's time to use it. Anyone interested in volunteering as a co-chair is encouraged to step forward. It would be helpful if potential candidates could post on the list what their vision is for the WG and what they would/wouldn't do if appointed. I would also urge volunteers to consult RIPE692: "RIPE Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures" to get an appreciation for what this role entails. I'll also be happy to provide advice and guidance to anyone thinking about volunteering, either in private or on the list. The tentative schedule would be to finalise a list of potential candidates by early next year and run the selection process in March or theresabouts so the new co-chair can be in place in good time for RIPE78. Please speak up if you think this schedule is unreasonable or impractical. Although I have no say in who the WG chooses -- I just make the consensus determination -- I would very much like to see someone new in the role. It would be a pity if one of the usual suspects got the job. Not that I have any criticisms of them. A fresh face, new thinking and a break from the same old routine is both healthy and desirable IMO. However that will of course ultimately be a decision for the WG to make. Over to you... ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:53:53 +0100 From: Peter Steinh?user <ps@embedd.com> To: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Cc: RIPE IoT WG <iot-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [iot-wg] appointing a co-chair Message-ID: <E101EFDF-6C63-440D-9CD6-0BF2B43A091B@embedd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Dear Jim, congratulations to the victory ;), it?s an important step for the working group to move forward. Dear Collegues, proceedings defined I put my hat in the ring for working group co-chair. I'm seriously concerned about the impact malicious IoT devices will have on the internet's infrastructure. My goal in the working group is defining best practices and standards about how can be dealt with IoT devices pro-actively to keep the coming attacks under control. Coming from a home gateway/personal router/CPE background (DD-WRT / OpenWRT) such devices are for me potential gatekeepers that can play an important role. Also ISP's should be brought on board, it's in their sole interest as well. To have an effect we need to gain maximum traction in the industry. There are already activities (SPIN / IETF home gateway WG) in this field. I would work on connecting the ongoing activities to form technical standards and reference implementations for easy adoption by the industry. I would also work on advocating these to industry players (i.e. Broadband Forum) to get broader support for these activities as well. It would be my pleasure to work closer with all of you for the better of the internet. Thanks in advance, Peter
Am 05.11.2018 um 07:43 schrieb Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>:
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, start your engines! :-)
Since the WG now has an appointment process in place, it's time to use it.
Anyone interested in volunteering as a co-chair is encouraged to step forward. It would be helpful if potential candidates could post on the list what their vision is for the WG and what they would/wouldn't do if appointed. I would also urge volunteers to consult RIPE692: "RIPE Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures" to get an appreciation for what this role entails. I'll also be happy to provide advice and guidance to anyone thinking about volunteering, either in private or on the list.
The tentative schedule would be to finalise a list of potential candidates by early next year and run the selection process in March or theresabouts so the new co-chair can be in place in good time for RIPE78. Please speak up if you think this schedule is unreasonable or impractical.
Although I have no say in who the WG chooses -- I just make the consensus determination -- I would very much like to see someone new in the role. It would be a pity if one of the usual suspects got the job. Not that I have any criticisms of them. A fresh face, new thinking and a break from the same old routine is both healthy and desirable IMO. However that will of course ultimately be a decision for the WG to make.
Over to you...
_______________________________________________ iot-wg mailing list iot-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 17:05:11 +0700 From: T?ma Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> To: ps@embedd.com Cc: iot-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [iot-wg] appointing a co-chair Message-ID: <CALZ3u+Zn-g36h80ag7vY+GDeMKYt1=iEcWq6y-On86u2S+eb2g@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I support this. | T?ma Gavrichenkov | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191 | mailto: ximaera@gmail.com | fb: ximaera | telegram: xima_era | skype: xima_era | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58 On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:54 PM Peter Steinh?user <ps@embedd.com> wrote:
Dear Jim,
congratulations to the victory ;), it?s an important step for the working group to move forward.
Dear Collegues,
proceedings defined I put my hat in the ring for working group co-chair.
I'm seriously concerned about the impact malicious IoT devices will have on the internet's infrastructure. My goal in the working group is defining best practices and standards about how can be dealt with IoT devices pro-actively to keep the coming attacks under control.
Coming from a home gateway/personal router/CPE background (DD-WRT / OpenWRT) such devices are for me potential gatekeepers that can play an important role. Also ISP's should be brought on board, it's in their sole interest as well. To have an effect we need to gain maximum traction in the industry.
There are already activities (SPIN / IETF home gateway WG) in this field. I would work on connecting the ongoing activities to form technical standards and reference implementations for easy adoption by the industry. I would also work on advocating these to industry players (i.e. Broadband Forum) to get broader support for these activities as well.
It would be my pleasure to work closer with all of you for the better of the internet.
Thanks in advance, Peter
Am 05.11.2018 um 07:43 schrieb Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>:
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, start your engines! :-)
Since the WG now has an appointment process in place, it's time to use it.
Anyone interested in volunteering as a co-chair is encouraged to step forward. It would be helpful if potential candidates could post on the list what their vision is for the WG and what they would/wouldn't do if appointed. I would also urge volunteers to consult RIPE692: "RIPE Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures" to get an appreciation for what this role entails. I'll also be happy to provide advice and guidance to anyone thinking about volunteering, either in private or on the list.
The tentative schedule would be to finalise a list of potential candidates by early next year and run the selection process in March or theresabouts so the new co-chair can be in place in good time for RIPE78. Please speak up if you think this schedule is unreasonable or impractical.
Although I have no say in who the WG chooses -- I just make the consensus determination -- I would very much like to see someone new in the role. It would be a pity if one of the usual suspects got the job. Not that I have any criticisms of them. A fresh face, new thinking and a break from the same old routine is both healthy and desirable IMO. However that will of course ultimately be a decision for the WG to make.
Over to you...
_______________________________________________ iot-wg mailing list iot-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
_______________________________________________ iot-wg mailing list iot-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ iot-wg mailing list iot-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg ------------------------------ End of iot-wg Digest, Vol 21, Issue 1 *************************************
On 7 Nov 2018, at 15:04, Avetik Yessayan <avetik.yessayan@shte.am> wrote:
Dear colleagues, I like to put forward my candidacy on WG co-chair.
You've probably not helped your candidacy by breaking two of the golden rules of mailing list etiquette. :-) Could everyone please take care to use meaningful and relevant Subject: headers? And in particular, *never, ever* reply to a list digest message. Thanks. In case this needs further explanation, here's what I posted about this subject last year: Replies to message digests create unnecessary and easily avoided problems. Here are the main ones: [1] It messes up the article threading used by everybody’s mail clients. [2] It’s not clear which message(s) in the digest are being replied to. [3] The list archives contain completely useless Subject: headers (like "iot-wg Digest, Vol X, Issue Y”) which make it difficult when browsing the archives to find out who said what and when. Item [3] becomes a real nuisance if/when there’s a need to consult the list archives to verify a consensus decision or review the development of things such as policy proposals.
participants (2)
-
Avetik Yessayan -
Jim Reid