Subject: [T2TRG] Proposed T2TRG charter: Please read and comment

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 19:01:20 +0900

Preparing for tomorrow's summary meeting (10:30–11:30 in Room 302), we
have pushed a proposed charter to the repository:

https://github.com/t2trg/2015-ietf94/blob/master/t2trg-charter.md

Please comment to me, to the mailing list, to tomorrow's meeting.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Laurent Ciavaglia <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 08:59:43 +0100

Dear Carsten, all,

Following this morning comments on the RG charter scope and definition 
of "Things":
     -FWIW, in our work we consider a "Thing" as an Object realizing a 
Function, having memory+processing+network capabilities.
     -An open question is whether "Things" are network end of lines (end 
points) or can also be intermediate points (could open the aspects of 
"chaining" Things).
     -I like and support the RG to have a large and open scope, however, 
in the chartering task, a small set of focus areas should appear. I 
think that based on the areas of interest presented, these focus areas 
are already nearly identified, they just need a bit more of 
description/consistency. I don't know if it would be also 
useful/beneficial to (try to) identify/describe relationships among 
those focus areas...

HTH, best regards, Laurent.

On 03/11/2015 11:01, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> T2TRG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/t2trg

-- 

Bien cordialement, Best regards,

*Laurent Ciavaglia*

Secure Cloud Networking

Bell Labs | Alcatel Lucent

phone: +33 160 402 636

email: [email-masked] 
<mailto:[email-masked]>

linkedin: laurentciavaglia <http://fr.linkedin.com/in/laurentciavaglia/>

address: Route de Villejust | 91620 Nozay | France

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:32:43 +0900

>     -An open question is whether "Things" are network end of lines
    > (end points) or can also be intermediate points (could open the
    > aspects of "chaining" Things).

As I see it, the relevant part of the "Internet" of Things, is that the
Thing terminates an IP connection, including, but not limited to layers 3
through "7".

I have been promoting terms to describe Things that do not speak IP to other
things as either:
   "Connected Things"   -- my pebble watch speaks BT to my phone, not IP.
                        Same for fitbit, current heart monitors, etc.)
   "Web Connected Things" -- things that speak use Wifi to speak HTTP to 
                          call home within a proprietary silo.  No lateral
                          communication without the cloud.

So, if the intermediate device is my phone, which collects all my (BT) body
sensors and speaks IP for them, then the relevant point about the end points
being intermediated is that the list of them can easily change, and it's
also possible that I'll replace one heart monitor with a different one
as I, for instance, change shirts (because it's woven in).

I think that this is the only relevance of having non-IP things being
intermediated.

Are you thinking that there might intermediation of IP-enabled things?

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Василий Долматов <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 03:57:50 +0300

среда, 4 ноября 2015 г. пользователь Michael Richardson написал:

>
> Laurent Ciavaglia <[email-masked] <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> Yes, if the scope will be broader than "phone with sensors".
Lowpan networks consist from a bunch of ip-enabled things each of them have
significant meaning as the end device at the same time they cooperate to
provide network connectivity to each other.
One can expect that in IoT world this will be _very_ frequent case of
network organisation

> --
> Michael Richardson <[email-masked] <javascript:;>>, Sandelman
> Software Works

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 02:21:17 +0100

On 11/05/2015 01:57 AM, Василий Долматов wrote:
> the relevant part of the "Internet" of Things, is that the

I understand why you come up with such a definition. Unfortunately, it
is not quite how the majority of the industry sees it. A sensor that is
connected via Bluetooth Smart to some IP-based device, such as a smart
phone, is still considered an IoT device (or Thing, as you call it).

Do you think it makes a huge difference whether IP is used at the edge?

---

From: Василий Долматов <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 04:25:59 +0300

четверг, 5 ноября 2015 г. пользователь Hannes Tschofenig написал:

> I understand why you come up with such a definition.

This was not my text and I did not do such a definition.

> Unfortunately, it

I think not, as long as the device can communicate with the rest of the
world (IP-world), mainly considering security aspects.

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 01:49:44 +0000

Agree, the rest of the world uses the IoT term to mean (at least)
anything that you can use IP to talk to, which may be through a hub/gateway to non-IP.

I don’t think it’s good to try to define it to be something more narrow.

Dave

From: T2TRG [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ??????? ????????
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2015 10:26 AM
To: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Cc: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; Laurent Ciavaglia <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [T2TRG] Proposed T2TRG charter: Please read and comment

Do you think it makes a huge difference whether IP is used at the edge?
I think not, as long as the device can communicate with the rest of the world (IP-world), mainly considering security aspects.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 14:08:10 +0900

Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >> the relevant part of the "Internet" of Things, is that the Thing
    >> terminates an IP connection, including, but not limited to layers 3
    >> through "7".

    > is not quite how the majority of the industry sees it.

That's nice for the Industry of Things aka the Proprietary Silo of Web
Connected Things that talk to an Amazon Cloud instance... here is a real life
failure:  http://time.com/4026192/nest-outages/

But if we are going to talk about the Internet of Things, I think that we
need to be a bit loud and obnoxious about calling them out.  No IP==Not IoT.

    > A sensor that is

It's a Connected Thing.

    > Do you think it makes a huge difference whether IP is used at the edge?

Yes, I think it's very very very very important.
An IP enabled device has no intermediary for at least some operations.
(Which doesn't mean that it has no help for some things, ala ACE)

If it's a Bluetooth Smart Thing to my phone, then it doesn't matter how much CPU
is in the Thing, what matters is what's in my phone.  My phone has lots of
ram, CPU, a user interface, and gets (in theory) regular software updates.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 14:11:58 +0900

> anything that you can use IP to talk to, which may be through a hub/

But, you can't use "IP" as *we* would call it -- you can use HTTP over IPv4. 
(Maybe not even HTTPS, and certainly not IPv6)

    > I don’t think it’s good to try to define it to be something more

okay.  But, do we think that these gateways are going to pass things like
CoAP (or higher-level, if we have such things) payloads directly across the
non-IP transit?

---

From: Василий Долматов <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:27:37 +0300

четверг, 5 ноября 2015 г. пользователь Michael Richardson написал:

>
> Dave Thaler <[email-masked] <javascript:;>> wrote:

They _could_. That is enough.
Otherwise you should explicitly prohibit such behavior moreover you should
take architect rural measures to prevent such behavior.

In vast and diverse IoT world that would sound funny and really be
dangerous (again, keeping in mind security aspects, which are many)

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 05:38:13 +0000

> (Maybe not even HTTPS, and certainly not IPv6)

You can absolutely use HTTP or HTTPS over IPv6 to the hub if it's a proxy,
just like you can use an HTTP front end of a web service, where the HTTP
front end might do something else within a data center.

> CoAP (or higher-level, if we have such things) payloads directly across the

I doubt it.   That doesn't mean you won't have HTTP or CoAP to the proxy
and something else (e.g., ZigBee or Z-Wave) on the other side.  That's 
what hubs do today anyway.

Dave

---

From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 06:46:13 +0100

> phone, is still considered an IoT device (or Thing, as you call it).

(Just a minor remark, mostly a side note to this thread...)

If the sensor uses Bluetooth Smart and also implements RFC 7668, it also
runs IP (over Bluetooth Smart / Bluetooth Low Energy).

Carles

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:17:25 +0900

Thank you all for the good input!

An updated charter is available at the below address.

If you just want to see the diffs (with al the typos etc):

https://github.com/t2trg/2015-ietf94/commit/b704395ef5186c47147f3d2c6af8d19f89b35a9a#diff-5ec7739e6288f5b46823eeab2f9fbe55

As you can see, we tried to keep it crisp, in a “call for papers” format.

I would like to forward this to the IAB at the end of the week.

Grüße, Carsten

On 3 November 2015 at 19:01:34, Carsten Bormann ([email-masked]) wrote:

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Robert Cragie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 07:19:14 +0000

I agree that the term "Internet of Things" is used pretty much to describe anything which is networked, irrespective of whether the network the Thing is connected to is actually running IP at layer 3. Whether that is abuse of the term "Internet" in the expression is arguable but the fact remains that it is used in that way.

However, the point below is an interesting one as an edge device running BT Smart may communicate using IP all the way to it (using RFC7668), or it may not. Is it important to distinguish these two cases? Some might argue that it is and that there should be a subclassification of a Thing whose network interface(s) have an IP stack on top of them. Then there is the "constrained" assumption, which appears in the charter; again, it may be important to distinguish "constrained" Things as a subclassification but there shouldn't be an implication that a Thing is necessarily constrained.

I guess my question is then: Should we identify these subclassifications and focus on them in the charter or is this really just about all Things?

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: T2TRG [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Carles Gomez Montenegro
Sent: 05 November 2015 05:46
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [T2TRG] Proposed T2TRG charter: Please read and comment

> is not quite how the majority of the industry sees it. A sensor that
> is connected via Bluetooth Smart to some IP-based device, such as a
> smart phone, is still considered an IoT device (or Thing, as you call it).

If the sensor uses Bluetooth Smart and also implements RFC 7668, it also runs IP (over Bluetooth Smart / Bluetooth Low Energy).

Carles

________________________________

-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 16:24:39 +0900

> If the sensor uses Bluetooth Smart and also implements RFC 7668, it
    > also runs IP (over Bluetooth Smart / Bluetooth Low Energy).

Then it's an Internet of Thing, rather than a Connected Thing.

The phone is just a router (which maybe includes a firewall).  That's great.
That's what we want.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:53:20 +0900

Thank you all for the discussion about the charter drafts.
The RG certainly should be working on its terminology at some point.
But that doesn’t need to be done as a prerequisite to its chartering.
(So far, there have been several presentations that did include last-hop “local interconnects”, so I would expect these to be of interest for further work as well.)

No major fixes outstanding, I’m now forwarding this charter to the IRTF chair for initiating the formal process.

Grüße, Carsten

On 5 November 2015 at 16:17:31, Carsten Bormann ([email-masked]) wrote:

Grüße, Carsten

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Василий Долматов <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:14:19 +0300

> 8 нояб. 2015 г., в 12:53, Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> написал(а):
> 
Sounds reasonable.

dol@