Thank you Spencer. > You mention the difficulty of acting as a server behind a NAT. I wonder > if you might also mention the power drain that's often required to > maintain port bindings on NATs when a device is not actively > transmitting. That may not be a problem for sleepy devices, but might be > for real-time reachable devices.
Right. We could do that. > Manufacturer Server > > The DNS name of the directory or proxy is hardwired to the > software by the manufacturer, and the directory or proxy is > actually run by the manufacturer. This approach is suitable in > many consumer usage scenarios, where it would be unreasonable to > assume that the consumer runs any specific network services. The > manufacturer's web interface and the directory/proxy servers can > co-operate to provide the desired functionality to the end user. > For instance, the end user can register a device identity in the > manufacturer's web interface and ask specific actions to be taken > when the device does something. > > Delegating Manufacturer Server > > The DNS name of the directory or proxy is hardwired to the > software by the manufacturer, but this directory or proxy merely > redirects the request to a directory or proxy run by the whoever > bought the device. This approach is suitable in many enterprise > environments, as it allows the enterprise to be in charge of > actual data collection and device registries; only the initial > bootstrap goes through the manufacturer. In many cases there are > even legal requirements (such as EU privacy laws) that prevent > providing unnecessary information to third parties. > > The reference to legal requirements under "Delegating Manufacturer > Server" made me think this was only appliable to "Delegating Manufacturer > Server", but not to "Manufacturer Server". Is that the case? Or is it > applicable whether the Manufacturer Server is delegating or not? We could try to make it clearer. There are situations where the legal requirements are relevant, e.g., healthcare. In those situations the manufacturer server approach might be inappropriate. Jari
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
