Subject: [Iotops] Fw: I-D Action: draft-km-industrial-internet-requirements-00.txt

From: "Kiran M (ietf)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:27:36 +0000

Hi IOTOPS,

I would like to make this group aware of the following document.

Having followed last IETF regular and interim meetings, it may  be a 
relevant to this group.  There is a lot of discussion on wireless IoT, 
we also wanted  to bring connected industrial devices perspective and 
industry control operations.

We are trying to build a case for emerging applications, where 
integration for traditional industry and internet protocols will be 
needed.

Look forward to discussion and feedback.

On behalf of the authors,
Thanks
Kiran

------ Forwarded Message ------
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Sent: 6/10/2021 7:41:59 AM
Subject: I-D Action: draft-km-industrial-internet-requirements-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

         Title           : Requirements and Scenarios for Industry Internet Addressing
         Authors         : Kiran Makhijani
                           Lijun Dong
	Filename        : draft-km-industrial-internet-requirements-00.txt
	Pages           : 13
	Date            : 2021-06-10

Abstract:
    Industry Control Networks host a diverse set of non-internet
    protocols for different purposes.  Even though they operate in a
    controlled environment, one end of industrial control applications
    run over internet technologies (IT) and another over operational
    technology (OT) protocols.  This memo discusses the challenges and
    requirements relating to converegence of OT and IT networks.  One
    particular problem in convergence is figuring out reachability
    between the these networks.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-km-industrial-internet-requirements/

There is also an htmlized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-km-industrial-internet-requirements-00

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 15:55:16 -0400

> Filename        : draft-km-industrial-internet-requirements-00.txt

Thank you for the interesting document.
If you ran it through xml2rfc --v2v3 mydraft.xml and submitted "mydraft.v2v3.xml"
then you'd get the way more readable HTML generated as well the traditional TXT.

    > between the these networks.

About: Modbus, Profibus, CANbus, Profinet, etc.
I understood that more and more these are running over "Ether/IP", which many
of us just call IP.   This eliminates the physical connectivity challenges,
but opens up significant risk due to converged network and addressing.

In the automotive space, ethernet (10baseT1S) seems to poised to win over
CANbus. My observation is that the question is which year will it win,
rather than if.  Are you seeing CANbus used outside the automobile itself, in
industrial settings?  (Do automotive plants use CANbus in the factory?)

It feels like your document ended just as it was getting into the question
you ask about how to arrange connectivity, addressing, etc.
Is there more to your document that you had in mind to write?
It's hard to know what your next step in the document would be.

Some thoughts I have are:

1) the XYZ-over-IP would be best if they were either XYZ-over-TLS, or perhaps
   XYZ-over-QUIC.  Sprinkle in DETNET as needed.  QUIC eliminates
   head-of-queue blocking issues, and so allows for higher priority commands
   to pass lower priority ones in the queue.
   {Of course, it should have been XYZ-over-SCTP-over-IPsec, and it could be
   so in a greenfield plant, but mindshare is not there}

   The challenge in the TLS based AKE is that we have to get the certificates
   installed, and then we have to arrange for mutual trust.
   I think that OPC UA currently deals with this kind of thing in it's
   configuration model, but I'm not priviledged to see those documents.
   (You may be?)

   Is that a gap you are interesting in?

2) since many of the other protocols use significant shorter identifiers,
   creating an overlay spec that embeds them in IPv6 IIDs would be
   interesting.

   This would allow IP based controllers to address Modbus, profibus,
   profinet, sensors/actuators directly, and if the underlying gateways and
   wiring allows, in a stateless way.
   Stateless is good because it means that the redundancy in the wiring can
   be exploited.

   This would be interesting work, but probably the IETF does not have the
   right people here (AT THIS TIME), to make progress on that.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide