Subject: [ieee-ietf-coord] last preparations for the 9/9 face-to-face meeting

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 20:29:38 +0300

The face-to-face meeting of the IETF And IEEE 802 leadership teams is
only three days away.

For those who cannot attend the meeting on site in Paris, the details
of the Webex conference were sent a couple of hours ago by Cindy.

The agenda is available at
https://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2013/01/ietf-ieee802-9-9-16-agenda-01.txt.
If you need to make changes and adjustments (like adjusting time
slots) please let me and Pat know as soon as possible.

If you plan to use presentations in the meeting, please send them in
advance to Cindy. We would like to have those posted at the time of
the meeting, so that we can ease the interaction with the remote
participants.

Safe trips to Paris to all on-site participants.

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 11:52:28 -0700

Thanks for putting this together, Dan.  Looking at the IoT slot, I think we
might to consider not just the current work but the larger question of how
we get to a system that is both interoperable over the long scales of
deployment common for sensors and actuators and has sufficient security to
be a boon instead of a headache.  Could we carve out a short piece of that
for a quick roundtable discussion?

Ted

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> ieee-ietf-coord mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord
>

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:04:38 +0300

Can you help in setting the context, Ted? For example by pointing to
the security threats that need to be taken into consideration in order
to reach a state closer to 'sufficient security'?

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:05:44 -0700

> to reach a state closer to 'sufficient security'?
Hi Dan,

As a state of play comment, we seem to be at a moment when a number of the
IoT players have come to the realization that no single company or
consortium seems likely to dominate the IoT landscape.  That's good in many
ways, but it also means that there is no common systems engineering of the
aggregate capabilities.

One way of looking at this is that we're seeing IoT as a monolithic topic
fade, in favor of a set of applications which happen to use sensors and
actuators to meet the users' needs.  Long term, I think that's a good
thing.  Short term, we don't have a strong sense of how a sensor or
actuator deployed for a particular application gets re-used when a new
application comes along (a motion sensor deployed for a lighting system
being reused for a burglar alarm, to give an example).  The recent IAB
workshop discussed some of the software update aspects of that, but I am
wondering if there aren't similar issues at the border of the IEEE/IETF
work.  Low power mesh networks, for example, often have a design
presumption of how many nodes can be in the mesh before you need new tools;
how does that work when the mesh size of application BAR is different to
the mesh size than the original application FOO?  Can you deploy those new
tools post-facto and so on?

To be clear, I don't have a list of issues related to the topic to bring to
the group here, but I was wondering if a quick discussion of the general
topic might surface some of them and prove productive.

regards,

Ted