Subject: [Ace] Agenda?

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 17:45:46 +0200

Hi all,

Kepeng and I have a quite intense debate about the agenda for the
meeting and so we wanted to hear your input as well (since we have to
upload an initial version of the agenda today).

We both obviously want to make some progress on our chartered items but
this raises the question about what to put on the agenda for this meeting.

The first chartered item is the use case & requirements document.

Ludwig and Kepeng think that the use case & requirements document is in
a pretty good shape. I see the story a bit differently.

In preparation of the unofficial interim meeting in Stockholm I picked
one use case (and actually only a sub-set of it), namely the door lock
use case with letting the remote visitor in.

Based on what I understood from the draft I created different variants
of what the user experience would be. Here is the write-up I created:
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/ace/interim2014/Door-Lock-UseCase.pdf

My conclusion from that exercise was that we should either delete the
remote delegation use case or postpone it for now. I would also focus on
an enterprise environment rather than an end user home use case.

I was hoping that we would discuss the different use cases from the use
case draft in more detail to better understand them rather than
immediately jumping to solutions.

I am curious what the others in the group want to use the available
face-to-face time for.

Ciao
Hannes

PS: Interestingly, Erik Wahlstroem from a physical access control
company was at the meeting and shared his requirements with us. For him
the real-time communication from the resource server (door lock) to the
backend infrastructure was not a no-go. He was actually planning around
RADIUS since he also wants to monitor in real-time who is where in the
building since he needs to create a value-add with an new, IP-based
solution rather than just re-creating what they already have using
different protocols. I thought that this was interesting insight from
someone who works in a company selling these products.

Here are his slides:
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/ace/interim2014/ErikWahlstroem_PhysicalObjectIdM.pdf

---

From: Josh Howlett <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 18:00:39 +0000

> PS: Interestingly, Erik Wahlstroem from a physical access control company
> was at the meeting and shared his requirements with us. For him the real-
> time communication from the resource server (door lock) to the backend
> infrastructure was not a no-go. He was actually planning around RADIUS
> since he also wants to monitor in real-time who is where in the building since
> he needs to create a value-add with an new, IP-based solution rather than
> just re-creating what they already have using different protocols. I thought
> that this was interesting insight from someone who works in a company
> selling these products.

FWIW at the Paris IETF meeting there was a guy from a French company in the business of hotel door locks. Their products used EAP/RADIUS.

Josh.

Janet(UK) is a trading name of Jisc Collections and Janet Limited, a 
not-for-profit company which is registered in England under No. 2881024 
and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue,
Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG. VAT No. 614944238

---

From: Stefanie Gerdes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 20:40:10 +0200

Hi all,

I would like to discuss the following things (not necessarily during
the face-to-face meeting but also on here on the list):

1) Do the use cases in the document represent what you are interested in.

2) Does each of the use cases include all aspects relevant for the given
scenario and did we manage to include all relevant requirements.

3) Does the use case document provide the required amount of detail to
be a useful guidance for the development of a solution?

Thanks,
Steffi

On 07/07/2014 05:45 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> meeting and so we wanted to hear your input as well (since we have
> to upload an initial version of the agenda today).
> 
> We both obviously want to make some progress on our chartered items
> but this raises the question about what to put on the agenda for
> this meeting.
> 
> Ludwig and Kepeng think that the use case & requirements document
> is in a pretty good shape. I see the story a bit differently.
> 
> In preparation of the unofficial interim meeting in Stockholm I
> picked one use case (and actually only a sub-set of it), namely the
> door lock use case with letting the remote visitor in.
> 
> Based on what I understood from the draft I created different
> variants of what the user experience would be. Here is the write-up
> I created: 
>  My conclusion from that exercise was that we should either delete
> the remote delegation use case or postpone it for now. I would also
> focus on an enterprise environment rather than an end user home use
> case.
> 
> I was hoping that we would discuss the different use cases from the
> use case draft in more detail to better understand them rather
> than immediately jumping to solutions.
> 
> I am curious what the others in the group want to use the
> available face-to-face time for.
> 
> Ciao Hannes
> 
> company was at the meeting and shared his requirements with us. For
> him the real-time communication from the resource server (door
> lock) to the backend infrastructure was not a no-go. He was
> actually planning around RADIUS since he also wants to monitor in
> real-time who is where in the building since he needs to create a
> value-add with an new, IP-based solution rather than just
> re-creating what they already have using different protocols. I
> thought that this was interesting insight from someone who works in
> a company selling these products.
> 
> Here are his slides: 
> _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>