On 3/6/2017 8:55 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
After thinking about this for a long time, I will reluctantly state a
position.
I do not believe that the WG should adopt this document at least until
such a time as a version has been released which does a substantially
better job of restricting the scope of the problem to be solved. If
the WG then decides to relax that scope so be it.
Jim
I also cannot support the adoption of this document. After listening to
the arguments about latency and cost and hearing assurances that the
protocol could be restricted to limit the impact of symmetric key
multicast for control, I spent another few days with the document and I
don't see how that (restrictions) would be possible.
I support the adoption of an asymmetric key multicast solution for IOT
control. I cannot support any version, including this one, of a
symmetric key multicast control system.
As I've noted before, this proposal and document are based on a highly
constrained, and as far as I can tell somewhat unique, set of
limitations related to cost and latency (e.g. lighting control
systems). Let me reiterate that I believe the small subset of folk that
are dealing in this space should instead generate an informational
"Here's how we do it" RFC rather than attempt to place this proposal on
the standards track.
With respect to Peter and Elliot's +1s on adoption, yes we could use a
multicast based control system, and no, a symmetric key multicast system
does not have the characteristics needed for secure control.
Lastly, the latency requirement argues, or perhaps screams that this
would be better handled at the L2 link layer rather than an IP based
system. Simply IP routing the packet in an IOT system could consume
most of the 250ms that the lighting folk argue is the maximum acceptable
latency from throwing the switch until the lights go on. The argument
about multiple technologies mostly doesn't hold water (e.g. you could
use a consistent framing inside the various bearer RF and hard link
link-layer standards).
Mike
*From:*Ace [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Kepeng Li
*Sent:* Thursday, February 23, 2017 1:48 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Cc:* Kathleen Moriarty <[email protected]>; Hannes
Tschofenig <[email protected]>
*Subject:* [Ace] Call for adoption for draft-somaraju-ace-multicast-02
Hello all,
This note begins a Call For Adoption for
draft-somaraju-ace-multicast-02 [1] to be adopted as an ACE working
group item, and added in the charter. The call ends on Mar 7, 2017.
Keep in mind that adoption of a document does not mean the document
as-is is ready for publication. It is merely acceptance of the
document as a starting point for what will be the final product of the
ACE working group. The working group is free to make changes to the
document according to the normal consensus process.
Please reply on this thread with expressions of support or opposition,
preferably with comments, regarding accepting this as a work item.
Thanks,
Kind Regards
Kepeng (ACE co-chair)
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-somaraju-ace-multicast/
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
