[iot-discussion] Proto-charter for IoT working group
Hello all, At the IoT BoF this evening, there was positive discussion about forming a working group. Some volunteers got together after the meeting to start to hammer out a charter. This is what we came up with. Draft: The Internet of Things working group will work on the areas of: - what role do service providers want to play - what role can service providers play - what do we need from manufacturers - engaging with governments and regulators - educating stakeholders - recommendations for vendors, service providers, end users and relevant stakeholders Best regards, Anna -- Anna Wilson Service Desk Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland’s National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George’s Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +353 (0)1 6609040 anna.wilson@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
Given that NCC is a member of AIOTI - https://www.aioti.eu - it would be useful if there was some kind of reference to AIOTI. Gordon
On 9 May 2017, at 19:28, Anna Wilson <anna.wilson@heanet.ie> wrote:
Hello all,
At the IoT BoF this evening, there was positive discussion about forming a working group. Some volunteers got together after the meeting to start to hammer out a charter. This is what we came up with.
Draft:
The Internet of Things working group will work on the areas of: - what role do service providers want to play - what role can service providers play - what do we need from manufacturers - engaging with governments and regulators - educating stakeholders - recommendations for vendors, service providers, end users and relevant stakeholders
Best regards, Anna
-- Anna Wilson Service Desk Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland’s National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George’s Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +353 (0)1 6609040 <tel:+353%201%206609040> anna.wilson@heanet.ie <mailto:anna.wilson@heanet.ie> www.heanet.ie <http://www.heanet.ie/> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 <tel:20036270>
_______________________________________________ iot-discussion mailing list iot-discussion@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-discussion
On 10 May 2017, at 04:26, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:
Given that NCC is a member of AIOTI - https://www.aioti.eu - it would be useful if there was some kind of reference to AIOTI.
Gordon, that doesn't need to be addressed right now. [And IMO, probably never. It's not appropriate for a WG Charter to make specific references to other organisations and consortia. That limits the scope. Or causes problems further down the line: for instance if the WG needs to engage with another body. Or if an organisation named in the charter closes or changes its name.] We can have a more considered discussion of this WG-to-be's charter in the months ahead. The v0.1 release Anna circulated is to give the RIPE community an idea of what the WG might do. The plan is to get approval for that at the Friday plenary => get the WG (sort of ) created => have it meet in Dubai. The thing that meets in Dubai won't be a fully-formed WG but it should be that when the meeting ends: co-chairs, more polished charter, etc.
... that doesn't need to be addressed right now.
In this case perfect might once again be the enemy of good. If we don't move quickly enough, we might find that things have moved on without us.
In other words, we shouldn’t spend more man-hours obsessing over details in the prospective charter than some IoT vendors spend creating their s/w update process.
So no time to plan, no time to specify! Get coding! We can patch later! I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. To be clear: I spoke in favour of creating a WG yesterday. I have not changed my mind! But I would appreciate some clarifications from the proto-chairs - Marco? Eliot? Anna? Jim? - on how they see the time-line/objectives going forward. So what is sought on Friday? What is expected at 75? How do we work between until then? Thanks, Gordon
On 10 May 2017, at 14:20, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:
But I would appreciate some clarifications from the proto-chairs - Marco? Eliot? Anna? Jim? - on how they see the time-line/objectives going forward. So what is sought on Friday? What is expected at 75? How do we work between until then?
Speaking only for myself, the likely sequence of events is: 1) get community approval on Friday to form an IoT WG 2) continue email discussions on this list about the WG's charter and objectives, identify stuckees for any initial pieces of work and/or potential WG co-chairs, etc 3) have an IoT thing in a WG slot at RIPE75 to approve the WG charter and appoint co-chars 4) get the RIPE75 plenary to endorse (3), formally creating the WG 5) profit!
On 10 May 2017, at 15:20, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:
But I would appreciate some clarifications from the proto-chairs - Marco? Eliot? Anna? Jim? - on how they see the time-line/objectives going forward. So what is sought on Friday? What is expected at 75? How do we work between until then?
Hi Gordon, Just to clarify, as a RIPE NCC employee I can not “chair” this, this needs a few volunteers from the community. Of course as the secretariat, me and my colleagues are fully committed to support this process. I also think it is too early to fill those seats, we can think about that later. Anna was nice enough to volunteer to step up on Friday, there were also several people, including me, who had constraints with earlier flights back home. From what I recall: - Hans Petter pointed out there was a “spare” slot and suggested we asked the community to consider allocating that to us - For that we need a rough idea of what we are going to do - So a few people hung around for a bit after the meeting and we cobbled together the proto-charter which Anna posted So the next steps: - Anna to present this one slide to plenary on Friday - Ask the room to agree to allocating the slot for RIPE 75 If that is a go, we can work on this list: - Fix a programme for that Dubai slot - Refine and finalise the proto-charter - Find a few volunteers to moderate that session (happy to assist there). And we can go into RIPE 75 with what I hope is a successful session in which we can make clear the RIPE community has a role and think about some of the ways to achieve our goals. And of course we can reach out to the plenary at RIPE 75 to make this ad-hoc arrangement a more permanent one and grant this cabal the official status of “working group”, at which point hopefully we can find at least one more volunteer to support Anna and fill the chair slots Marco
Thank you Marco! This is the sort of “thing" I think was needed. Gordon
On 10 May 2017, at 15:33, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@ripe.net> wrote:
On 10 May 2017, at 15:20, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com <mailto:gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com>> wrote:
But I would appreciate some clarifications from the proto-chairs - Marco? Eliot? Anna? Jim? - on how they see the time-line/objectives going forward. So what is sought on Friday? What is expected at 75? How do we work between until then?
Hi Gordon,
Just to clarify, as a RIPE NCC employee I can not “chair” this, this needs a few volunteers from the community. Of course as the secretariat, me and my colleagues are fully committed to support this process. I also think it is too early to fill those seats, we can think about that later.
Anna was nice enough to volunteer to step up on Friday, there were also several people, including me, who had constraints with earlier flights back home.
////snip
Anna was nice enough to volunteer to step up on Friday, there were also several people, including me, who had constraints with earlier flights back home.
What time slot on Friday is this? Julf
Anna was nice enough to volunteer to step up on Friday, there were also several people, including me, who had constraints with earlier flights back home.
What time slot on Friday is this?
I assume (yes I know, assumptions are…) that this will be handled during HPH’s presentation slot between 11:00 and 12:30. But it is probably good to coordinate this a bit with him, not sure he is on this list. Marco
On 10 May 2017, at 16:11, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@ripe.net> wrote:
Anna was nice enough to volunteer to step up on Friday, there were also several people, including me, who had constraints with earlier flights back home.
What time slot on Friday is this?
I assume (yes I know, assumptions are…) that this will be handled during HPH’s presentation slot between 11:00 and 12:30. But it is probably good to coordinate this a bit with him, not sure he is on this list.
I just spoke to HPH and asked for a few minutes to discuss the WG proposal. I'll send him bullet points for a slide shortly - probably just the six that started this thread. One of the questions I've been asking is "why do we need a separate working group for this" and I'm getting good feedback, which I may be able to summarise on Friday. Best regards, Anna -- Anna Wilson Service Desk Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland’s National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George’s Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +353 (0)1 6609040 anna.wilson@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
On 9 May 2017, at 18:28, Anna Wilson <anna.wilson@heanet.ie> wrote:
Draft:
The Internet of Things working group will work on the areas of: - what role do service providers want to play - what role can service providers play - what do we need from manufacturers - engaging with governments and regulators - educating stakeholders - recommendations for vendors, service providers, end users and relevant stakeholders
Many thanks for this Anna. I think this v0.1 draft of the charter is good enough to be present at the plenary on Friday. Note to everyone else: the above text is *not* the WG charter. It's a starting point to discuss and formalise a charter in time for RIPE75. ie On Friday, someone will say "We're thinking of creating an IoT WG and here's a very rough outline of what its charter might be and what we think the WG will do. Can we get approval for this?" That way, the WG will be up and running by Dubai. If we have to finalise the charter first, the WG will not be created until RIPE76 at the earliest. We agreed at last night's BoF that we couldn't wait that long. I hope any further comments on the draft Anna circulated will focus on showstoppers: for instance important topics or objectives which have been missed from the list above.
Jim, Anna, and everybody else who showed up, Apologies for the lack of seats, we knew it was going to be popular, but this was beyond expectations. Thanks to everybody who contributed, I think the message below indeed captures the outcome of the discussion and the way forward. My colleague Suzanne took quite extensive notes, we will try and publish a summary as soon as possible, As Paul Rendek already mentioned during the session, the RIPE NCC will do anything to assist in this process. Please feel free to contact me or one of my other colleagues from the External Relations team if there are specific things that needs to be done. Looking forward to Friday’s plenary and hopefully a continuation of the positive spirit we had going yesterday. Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC
On 10 May 2017, at 10:40, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 9 May 2017, at 18:28, Anna Wilson <anna.wilson@heanet.ie> wrote:
Draft:
The Internet of Things working group will work on the areas of: - what role do service providers want to play - what role can service providers play - what do we need from manufacturers - engaging with governments and regulators - educating stakeholders - recommendations for vendors, service providers, end users and relevant stakeholders
Many thanks for this Anna.
I think this v0.1 draft of the charter is good enough to be present at the plenary on Friday.
Note to everyone else: the above text is *not* the WG charter. It's a starting point to discuss and formalise a charter in time for RIPE75. ie On Friday, someone will say "We're thinking of creating an IoT WG and here's a very rough outline of what its charter might be and what we think the WG will do. Can we get approval for this?" That way, the WG will be up and running by Dubai. If we have to finalise the charter first, the WG will not be created until RIPE76 at the earliest. We agreed at last night's BoF that we couldn't wait that long.
I hope any further comments on the draft Anna circulated will focus on showstoppers: for instance important topics or objectives which have been missed from the list above. _______________________________________________ iot-discussion mailing list iot-discussion@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-discussion
Jim,
I think this v0.1 draft of the charter is good enough to be present at the plenary on Friday.
I agree.
If we have to finalise the charter first, the WG will not be created until RIPE76 at the earliest. We agreed at last night's BoF that we couldn't wait that long.
Indeed. In this case perfect might once again be the enemy of good. If we don't move quickly enough, we might find that things have moved on without us. Julf
On Wed, 10 May 2017, Johan Helsingius wrote:
Jim,
I think this v0.1 draft of the charter is good enough to be present at the plenary on Friday.
I agree.
+1.
If we have to finalise the charter first, the WG will not be created until RIPE76 at the earliest. We agreed at last night's BoF that we couldn't wait that long.
Indeed. In this case perfect might once again be the enemy of good. If we don't move quickly enough, we might find that things have moved on without us.
Fully agree. Cheers, Carlos
Julf
_______________________________________________ iot-discussion mailing list iot-discussion@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-discussion
If we have to finalise the charter first, the WG will not be created until RIPE76 at the earliest. We agreed at last night's BoF that we couldn't wait that long.
In other words, we shouldn’t spend more man-hours obsessing over details in the prospective charter than some IoT vendors spend creating their s/w update process. :) Rob
On 2017-05-09 19:28, Anna Wilson wrote:
Hello all,
At the IoT BoF this evening, there was positive discussion about forming a working group. Some volunteers got together after the meeting to start to hammer out a charter. This is what we came up with.
Draft:
The Internet of Things working group will work on the areas of: - what role do service providers want to play - what role can service providers play - what do we need from manufacturers - engaging with governments and regulators - educating stakeholders - recommendations for vendors, service providers, end users and relevant stakeholders
I am fine with this as a proto-charter. BTW, that last point reminded me of https://thedigitalstandard.org which may or may not be something we want to keep track of / be involved in too Jelte
all, On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 07:28:29PM +0200, Anna Wilson wrote:
Draft:
I'd like to thank the volunteers for drafting this. I believe it is a good start, but not yet good enough - and while indeed polishing might be too much, let's take the time to apply emery paper.
The Internet of Things working group will work on the areas of: - what role do service providers want to play - what role can service providers play
[the session was about security, so what was implicit could be made a bit more explicit here]
- what do we need from manufacturers
Really, after enjoying the discussion in a room full of (mostly, no offense) engineers in a state of mutually assured perplexity (fair enough) and thus singing "regulation" in a choir, this
- engaging with governments and regulators
gives me grief and dispair. We, RIPE, already have a WG explicitly aimed at interaction with this sphere and so not only should the overlap be seriously clarified, it is also unclear to me how a WG would literally "engag[e] with governments and regulators".
- recommendations for vendors, service providers, end users and relevant stakeholders
On the - useful, IMHO - vendor/manufacturer split, I'd like to see an emphasis on bringing together from different communities, given there's little "I" in IoT. -Peter
On 11 May 2017, at 15:33, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:
I'd like to thank the volunteers for drafting this. I believe it is a good start, but not yet good enough
Peter, it's good enough for what's needed by tomorrow. Remember the draft is *not* the charter. We'll sort out a proper charter by the time the WG-to-be meets in Dubai. I agree the draft is not yet good enough. For one thing it's mostly a set of rhetorical bullet points. That's not appropriate for a WG charter. However the text should be good enough though to inform the RIPE meeting what this WG-to-be is likely to do. I hope you can accept that's the purpose of the draft and tolerate it for the next 12-24 hours. If you feel there are showstoppers in the draft, please supply replacement text. It's not helpful to say "I don't like foo" and then not offer alternative wording. If you want to pick nits and get into detail, please do that once we propery start to work on the charter. IMO it shouldn't be necessary to do that now.
Marco wrote with respect to the "Security BoF, relation between (IoT) devices and infrastructure" “… a BoF to explore the link between insecure devices and infrastructure security and stability, especially what we would like to discuss is the possible role of the access providers in the system. •What role do service providers want to play? •What role can service providers play? •What do we need from manufacturers? •What is the role of governments? “ Anna then posted afterwards with respect to the “proto-charter”: "The Internet of Things working group will work on the areas of: - what role do service providers want to play - what role can service providers play - what do we need from manufacturers - engaging with governments and regulators - educating stakeholders - recommendations for vendors, service providers, end users and relevant stakeholders” Peter has pointed out that we have a specific WG for engaging with government and regulators. NCC also has its regular roundtable meetings with that community. And NCC is also a member of AIOTI and is involved with the ITU in the IOT area. The IOT ought to be of interest to the IPv6 WG of course. But then looking down the list of WGs it is almost easier to say which WGs may not have an interest. Except I guess they might still disagree. So I am not completely clear - after yesterday and maybe particularly also after the inputs from Marco and Jim? - whether we want to restrict any future WG only to “security”. I believe we need an IOT WG. And not just an IOT Security WG. Even if the initial emphasis may be on security. With all of the above in mind I think I can remain comfortable enough with the proto-charter until we get initial agreement tomorrow. And then we can work on the real charter. Gordon ——— https://twitter.com/internetofshit Scott Helme @Scott_Helme Just waiting for the menu to boot so I can order breakfast…
Gordon, thanks for your thoughtful response.
I believe we need an IOT WG.
While there is no shortage on IoT fora/consortia etc, I agree that a venue on the topic of "IoT" in the RIPE community is useful o to discuss challenges and opportunities of "IoT" for the RIPE community o to serve as a focal point for the NCC regarding community input to their IoT activities, including liaisons o to invite IoT communities to for a dialogue on matters of operational relevance, including security, the numbering system, and applicability of standards o to develop positions of the RIPE community on IoT matters, operational and beyond
And not just an IOT Security WG. Even if the initial emphasis may be on security.
Sure, just the item list was to be seen in context of its genesis. -Peter
On 11 May 2017, at 17:26, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:
While there is no shortage on IoT fora/consortia etc, I agree that a venue on the topic of "IoT" in the RIPE community is useful
o to discuss challenges and opportunities of "IoT" for the RIPE community
o to serve as a focal point for the NCC regarding community input to their IoT activities, including liaisons
o to invite IoT communities to for a dialogue on matters of operational relevance, including security, the numbering system, and applicability of standards
o to develop positions of the RIPE community on IoT matters, operational and beyond
Peter, I think this is very close to what the proposed WG's charter should be.
I agree. A very good starting point.
On 12 May 2017, at 10:22, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 11 May 2017, at 17:26, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:
While there is no shortage on IoT fora/consortia etc, I agree that a venue on the topic of "IoT" in the RIPE community is useful
o to discuss challenges and opportunities of "IoT" for the RIPE community
o to serve as a focal point for the NCC regarding community input to their IoT activities, including liaisons
o to invite IoT communities to for a dialogue on matters of operational relevance, including security, the numbering system, and applicability of standards
o to develop positions of the RIPE community on IoT matters, operational and beyond
Peter, I think this is very close to what the proposed WG's charter should be.
_______________________________________________ iot-discussion mailing list iot-discussion@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-discussion
On 11 May 2017, at 18:26, Peter Koch wrote:
While there is no shortage on IoT fora/consortia etc, I agree that a venue on the topic of "IoT" in the RIPE community is useful
o to discuss challenges and opportunities of "IoT" for the RIPE community
o to serve as a focal point for the NCC regarding community input to their IoT activities, including liaisons
o to invite IoT communities to for a dialogue on matters of operational relevance, including security, the numbering system, and applicability of standards
o to develop positions of the RIPE community on IoT matters, operational and beyond
I agree with Jim and Gordon that this is very close to what is needed. The charter doesn’t need to be any more wordy than this, nor any narrower in scope. Good job, Peter! Niall
participants (10)
-
Anna Wilson -
Carlos Friacas -
Gordon Lennox -
Jelte Jansen -
Jim Reid -
Johan Helsingius -
Marco Hogewoning -
Niall O'Reilly -
Peter Koch -
Rob Evans