Subject: [Ace] Dynamically Connecting Smart Sports Equipment

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 17:41:39 +0200

After Sean provided his review comments I took a look at this scenario
again and I get more and more the impression that we should delete this
scenario since it is nothing that we do in ACE.

My understanding of the scenario is that we are asking for a sort-of
multi-user operating system to be introduced for sports watches.

While this sounds like a fun scenario I don't see how it relates to what
we do in ACE.

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Olaf Bergmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 21:52:25 +0200

> multi-user operating system to be introduced for sports watches.

No, we are trying to cover relevant authorization scenarios. Following
your reasonig, we could also argue that ACE neither does ship containers
nor install lighting in office buildings and therefore must throw out
those scenarios as well.

Grüße
Olaf

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 22:26:46 +0200

Olaf,

I believe you misunderstand the comment.

Unless I fail to understand the description of the scenario but it seems
that what is being asked for is a wearable (sports watch) that supports
multiple users on the same device. Alice gives his watch his friend Bob
but does not want Bob to see the training data she previously collected
and stored on the device.

How does this relate to ACE?

Ciao
Hannes

On 10/07/2015 09:52 PM, Olaf Bergmann wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
>

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:34:58 +0200

It is a simple example of ownership and multiple stakeholders.

It would be nice to have more of those, but maybe we want to put a lid
on what we have.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 17:28:50 -0400

The lighting example is similar in that manner - multiple users with separate zones that they may be authorized to access.  The difference is scale and implementation.

Kathleen 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 4:34 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 23:39:43 +0200

I am not sure about that. I have looked into lighting at some level of
detail and there the problem is that devices like light switches,
phones, etc. are trying to change the configuration of other devices,
such as luminaries.

The sports watch scenario, if I understand it correctly, is about us two
using one watch but with the desire to keep our recorded date on the
watch separate. I don't want you to see my running data and you don't
want me to see your swimming data stored on the same watch.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 23:46:45 +0200

Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>  I don't want you to see my running data and you don't

I don't want you to see my birthday surprise lighting scenarios and you
don't want me to see your exorbitant accumulated usage.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 17:49:07 -0400

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:39 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I was thinking you and I might work for different companies in the same building and have access just got the lighting in our own space.  This is in that use case.  So there is the concept of separate authorization zones on that use case as well - just on a completely different scale.

Kathleen

---

From: "Kumar, Sandeep" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 07:41:12 +0000

Agree. Further there can be flex spaces in offices where a person sitting at that moment can decide what brightness and white-color he prefers but the next person cannot access any of those settings or the logged data.

Sandeep

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ace [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty
>
> The lighting example is similar in that manner - multiple users with separate
> zones that they may be authorized to access.  The difference is scale and
> implementation.
>
> Kathleen
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>

________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 13:59:47 +0200

Maybe I don't understand the sports equipment scenario properly but I
fail to see how this is relevant to the lighting scenario.

Here is the scenario I am referring to:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-usecases-07#section-2.6.1

In this scenario I am having a watch used by two users and one user
wants to prevent the other user from accessing data stored LOCALLY on
the watch.

I don't see how this could possibly mapped to a lighting scenario.

I have to admit that I am not a domain expert to say whether such a
scenario is realistic or relevant but I don't see how anything developed
in ACE can contribute a solution.

You will probably argue that I should shut up arguing about these
scenario because nobody is going to compare solutions against the
scenarios anyway.

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:21:51 -0400

Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I was thinking you and I might work for different companies in the same
> building and have access just got the lighting in our own space.  This is
> in that use case.  So there is the concept of separate authorization zones
> on that use case as well - just on a completely different scale.

Or the two of your companies share a hallway that leads to the bathroom.
Who turned the light on last night at 2am might be relevant.
(Knowing that might help me decide to short the shares of your company)

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

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 18:19:30 -0400

It's not the *watch* which might be shared/multi-user (although it might).
It's the running threadmille, elliptical, or the chin-up-machine, etc.
It could also be that the gym has a number of heart monitors, and that
they are leant out.