On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com
wrote:
Yes, I agree with the replies so far, more or less. [...]
As general principle, my preference is for networked home devices to
*request* access to its maker's online service, with the owner having the
option to decline and to still have a functional device with the basic
features all working as a normal person would naturally expect. When I
think about arguments for *demanding* access to Internet service, I can
think of precisely one for which I am forced to admit there are personally
convincing reasons for doing it: emergency firmware update. Even there, I
still squirm, and I can sympathize with people who disagree.
Really, if my personal preferences are to rule the day, then everything
else ought to be in the category of "you bought a $DEVICE, and it does
$FUNCTION just fine, but if you let it call it's mother periodically, then
it will also do $OPTION as well, and won't that be nice. Okay? [y/N]"
(FWIW, I'm reasonably sure my current employers hold a compatible view on
this topic, but— you know— I can't speak for them, of course.) Enabling
more local autonomy would make me happier, and my hunch is that this may
actually be a minority view in the Internet engineering community, but I'm
happy to represent yo. For reals.
This is to say that I agree with Mr. Klensin: there are some places where
the current HOMENET drafts are less than optimal in this regard. I can
think of ways to improve them to make engineering the local autonomy we're
discussing more feasible. (Yes, I'll elaborate in forthcoming messages to
the HOMENET list.)
--
james woodyatt <jhw(_at_)nestlabs(_dot_)com>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering