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
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#22... 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_MMQ... 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 *Peter Steinhäuser, CEO* embeDD GmbH · Alter Postplatz 2 · 6370 Stans · Switzerland Phone: +41 (41) 784 95 85 · Fax: +41 (41) 784 95 64
_______________________________________________ iot-wg mailing list iot-wg@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
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@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#22... <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/iot-wg/2017-November/subject.html#226> 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_MMQ... <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdVVq38C96Mn_Lv8eDgiHGzt3TgzPfx_MMQ4iMiORnM2zWBYg/viewform> 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@ripe.net <mailto:iot-wg@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg <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
participants (2)
-
Peter Steinhäuser -
sandoche Balakrichenan