Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2019-12-12 Thread Benjamin Francis
Hi, I'd like to provide Mozilla IoT team feedback on this charter, the content of which has already been modified slightly based on our earlier feedback to the Working Group during the drafting stages. We are happy overall with

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-12-09 Thread L. David Baron
On Friday 2016-12-09 18:12 -1000, L. David Baron wrote: > The W3C is proposing a new charter for: Please ignore this thread, sorry. I resent the SVG charter with a correct subject line. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-12-06 Thread Sandip Kamat
Hi all, This is a great discussion and (inevitably) security is in fact one of the key focus areas for the proposed IOT platform/framework that we are working to create in the Connected devices team. Tantek raises some good points - We are painfully aware of those. This is going to take much more

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-12-01 Thread Benjamin Francis
Hi Tantek, On the very serious issues of security and privacy on the Internet of Things, I agree with you. On your proposed solution to those problems of somehow trying to slow down the worldwide deployment of IoT devices (currently forecast to reach tens of billions by 2020) and prevent any

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-11-29 Thread Tantek Çelik
To add to this thread, I think there are still fundamental security issues, which have only gotten worse, that the charter does not address, nor has the incubation to date come even close to understanding, much less prototyping / stress-testing. 1. The rapid deployment of WoT/IoT devices poses

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-11-29 Thread Benjamin Francis
Hi David, Have you had any more correspondence with the W3C on Mozilla's behalf regarding this charter? From the Web of Things Interest Group mailing list it appears that the group is happy to remove the dependency on RDF as suggested in our

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-10-17 Thread L. David Baron
The comments I submitted on the WoT charter are archived at: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2016Oct/0004.html -David On Friday 2016-10-14 15:03 +0100, Benjamin Francis wrote: > Hi David, > > We collected some feedback in a document >

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-10-14 Thread Benjamin Francis
Hi David, We collected some feedback in a document and I'm going to try to summarise it here. Please let me know if you feel this feedback is appropriate and feel free to edit it before sending. I

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-10-13 Thread Joseph Lorenzo Hall
+1 on keeping w3c charter discussions here (or at least letting those of us organizational friends of Moz know where we go for that part of our Moz fix) On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin Francis

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-10-13 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin Francis wrote: > dev-platform is now only really about the back end of Firefox which isn't > very relevant here. WoT mainly concerns the server side of the web stack. I don't really agree with this. 1) We can't really consider

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-10-13 Thread Benjamin Francis
On 13 October 2016 at 01:51, Martin Thomson wrote: > I agree with this sentiment, but I don't think that we need to insist > that a new W3C group solve these issues. I'm very much concerned with > the question of how a new "thing" might be authenticated, even how > clients of

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-10-12 Thread Martin Thomson
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote: > Security is the number one problem for anything "ot" (iot, wot, > wotever), I agree with this sentiment, but I don't think that we need to insist that a new W3C group solve these issues. I'm very much concerned with

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-10-12 Thread Tantek Çelik
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 6:21 AM, Benjamin Francis > wrote: >> Much more compelling is the member submission from EVRYTHNG which also forms >> the basis of the book, Building the Web of Things. > >

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-10-12 Thread Martin Thomson
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 6:21 AM, Benjamin Francis wrote: > Much more compelling is the member submission from EVRYTHNG which also forms > the basis of the book, Building the Web of Things. Yes, that is a much clearer articulation of a vision. It starts going off the rails

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-10-12 Thread Benjamin Francis
On 12 October 2016 at 02:00, Martin Thomson wrote: > Does anyone at Mozilla intend to join this working group? I see no > Mozilla members in the IG. > Yes, in Connected Devices we have recently started looking at this area in some detail and I think we should seriously

Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Web of Things Working Group

2016-10-11 Thread Martin Thomson
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:52 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > My initial reaction would be to worry about whether there's > properly-incubated material here that's appropriate to charter a > working group for, or whether this is more of a (set of?) research > projects. W3C has an