Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> writes:
>IIRC the IoT marketing term doesn't have a very long history so I don't
>really know what substance lies behind that remark.
I just used "IoT" because someone else had used it, since it's about as well-
defined as "Web 2.0" I agree that it's not terribly useful to define a feature
set. What I meant was low-power embedded, smart meters and the like, IoT in
the sense of "little internet-enabled things".
>>(I've always wanted to sit down and design a generic "encrypted pipe from A
>>to B using minimal resources" spec, and I'm sure many other people have had
>>the same thought at one time or another).
>
>Then why don't you do that?
It's a bit like designing a new { OS | programming language | network protocol
| ... }, everybody who works in the relevant field would like to have a go at
something like this, and probably have a lot of fun fiddling with it, but I'm
not sure how much appeal it would have to anyone apart from the person playing
with it. So the answer is "for the same reason I haven't had a go at
designing a new OS, programming language, network protocol, etc".
Peter.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
