Subject: Re: [6lowapp] Security and Commissioning

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:02:09 -0700

On Oct 31, 2009, at 5:35 PM, Don Sturek wrote:

> Hi Cullen,
>
> I think I could easily outline the options for this type of  
> commissioning.
> About half that I know of are patented.
>
> Is this really something 6LowAPP would address though?

Good question - that's really up to the participants that want to do  
the work. I suspect that something is needed or it will not be  
possible to have interoperable equipment for many of the uses cases  
but again, I may be way off base there.

As a FYI for folks less familiar with the IETF on the on the topic of  
patents, the WG can choose between technologies - they might choose  
one that is somewhat technically inferior to get better patent  
licensing terms or less patents. The IETF process gets a fairly wide  
range of choice to the WGs on this. Some area of the IETF heavily  
avoid patents, others publish RFC that are encumbered with many  
patents.  The one things the IETF does insist on is if people are  
participating in the discussion of an idea that they know is patents,  
that they do inform people that there may be IPR on it. This is so  
that the WG can try and make rational decisions about if they should  
choose that path or not. My description here is a bit hand wavy but it  
is all covered in detail in BCP 79 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp79).

>
> Don
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On  
> Behalf
> Of Cullen Jennings
> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:34 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [6lowapp] Security and Commissioning
>
>
> Consider one of the use cases several people have discussed. You
> install a new light. You install a new light switch. Now, how do you
> bind them together in the type of deployments where you want security?
>
> One way or another we need to meet the requirements of BCP 61. For
> many BOFs, how they will BCP 61 is fairly obvious and no one worries
> about it. However, for this BOF, it is not obvious. To get to a WG, I
> think we need to have enough of a sketch of how we are going to do the
> security that we can convince the security folks that we are not
> insane and that we will be able to meet the requirements of BCP 61 in
> the protocols developed. This duckling imprint approach was a stawman
> approach to this but it may be totally  useless and not what we want
> to in which case we should promptly eject it from the charter.
>
> The question is, what are we going to do? Ideas? Can someone sketch
> out at the back of a cocktail napkin level enough of an idea on the
> one or more ways we want to deal wit this? If we agree on that I can
> do my best to figure out how to get that into the charter in a way
> that convinces the security people that they don't have to show up and
> say No.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowapp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowapp
>