On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Amelia Andersdotter <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks Brian for going through all this work, and Tom and Alexandre for > providing interesting feedback. > > In section 3, it may be more interesting to divide Examples of Limited > Domain Requirements into networks containing human end-users and > networks that don't contain human end-users (such as industrial systems, > sensor networks, IoT, etc, merging the home network and small office > network use-cases). It would make the taxonomy a more useful tool for > assessing the limited domain requirements, and is better adjusted to how > demands for (or requirements/expectations on) these limited domains > arise in the real world. That could serve as a basis for elaboration of > section 7. > Hi Amelia,
I'm curious why you think discriminating networks containing end-users and those that don't would be helpful here. Until the rise of the machines happens, isn't it true that all communication networks exist to serve humans in some fashion? For instance, if someone deploys radiation sensors in a nuclear power planet and connects them as IoT to their network, doesn't that make the workers in the power plant effectively end-users of those devices? Or to put a darker spin on it, if such devices are breached then couldn't bring harm to people just as easily as if a normal "end-user device" is compromised? Tom > More broadly, I share Tom's concerns that this justifies using the IETF > as a platform for standardising intRAnets, rather than an intERnet. But > > On 2018-09-12 22:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I'd go a bit further - I think we need to standardize the mechanisms >> for identifying and defining the boundary, so that what happens inside >> can be effectively contained. That helps everybody. > > This makes sense, and could perhaps even help constructively with some > issues (such as privacy/security issues discussed in SUIT) that arise > when specific limitations on node privacy or security as described > RFC6973 or RFC8280 aren't relevant, because no human is technically > impacted. > > best regards, > > Amelia > > -- > Amelia Andersdotter > Technical Consultant, Digital Programme > > ARTICLE19 > www.article19.org > > PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55 > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
