On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Dean Willis
<dean(_dot_)willis(_at_)softarmor(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 10/12/2016 08:51 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Right now we seem to have more industry IoT interest groups than ever.
But what we don't seem to have is a group whose brand is going to mean
'it will work, it is secure and there are no hidden vendor lockins'.
Arguably, (with Apple being the primary example and Chromebook backing
it up), one can only make it work, and be secure, in the presence of
EXPLICIT vendor lockin. And then only when said vendor doesn't get lazy
and take shortcuts.
In the implementation-of-standards world, MUST is optional, SHOULD is
ignored, and MAY is merely permissive of promiscuity.
Compliance needs sharp teeth, and the IETF doesn't even have rubber
dentures.
I agree, But there are three separate problems
1) Define a set of specifications that address the problem.
2) Provide a means that allows aware consumers to know if products are
compliant
(1)
3) Make consumers aware to look for (2)
I don't think IETF needs to address 2 or 3. Those are marketing type
efforts. WiFi being a successful example. But if it doesn't address 1 then
it will become irrelevant in the space.