Subject: Re: [6lo] [Anima] Thread [Comments needed for Security Bootstrapping of IEEE 802.15.4 based Internet of Things]

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:36:15 +0100

At the moment the specifications are only available to Thread members
since the specification is still work in progress.

I don't know when it will be finalized and released to the wider public.

Regarding the liaison I do not have an opinion about the value of it.

Ciao
Hannes

On 02/26/2015 01:52 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 26/02/2015 10:25, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> 
> ...
>>>> I know nothing about Thread, whatever and whoever it is.
>>>
>>> Here is an intro document:
>>> http://threadgroup.org/Portals/0/documents/events/ThreadIntro.pdf
> 
> Thanks for that. It seems to have all the downsides of secretive ad hoc
> membership-based consortia, except for the upside of a RAND-RF IPR
> policy.
> 
>> I think we need to clarify here that Thread Group is formed to deal
>> with home environments.
>>
>> Enterprise or industrial environments seem to be excluded.
> 
> So far. The boundary between this and larger building services
> networks is pretty fuzzy, isn't it?
> 
> In any case, should we (the WGs on copy, and perhaps some others)
> be asking the IAB to arrange a meaningful liaison with Thread?
> 
> Back at Hannes: is there a spec for their approach to security
> enrollment?
> 
>    Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 08:34:42 +1300

> Regarding the liaison I do not have an opinion about the value of it.

It is precisely to get access before the work is finalised, so that it
can be reviewed by all the right people. We know that closed standards
development produces bad standards.

    Brian

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 12:22:25 -0500

Brian, Hannes ...

> On Mar 3, 2015, at 11:36 AM 3/3/15, Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I've opened a discussion within the IAB Liaison Oversight program regarding establishment of a liaison relationship with Thread.

- Ralph

> 6lo mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

---

From: Rene Struik <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:29:54 -0500

Dear colleagues:

I don't understand all the excitement here: everyone is free to draw up 
architectural blueprints and complete designs to their liking. This can 
be done in the attic, as company-internal project, with an industry 
consortium, or with SDOs, such as IETF. There is  no way of knowing what 
people dream up in their attic or in a "secret" project X type of 
effort. Or, is the fear that IETF will loose its lustre?

Competition (without bullying) is good and is an enticement to consider 
solid designs and thinking outside of the 
"we-did-this-20-years-ago-like-this-and-therefore-have-to-stick-to-this" 
box (the flaky ones will end up with marketing and PR departments of 
competing efforts to poke fun at).

Best regards, Rene

On 3/3/2015 2:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 6tisch-security mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security

-- 
email: [email-masked] | Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658 | US: +1 (415) 690-7363

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 11:06:22 +1300

Regards
   Brian Carpenter
   http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7924-6182

> effort. Or, is the fear that IETF will loose its lustre?

No. The fear (and it has been realised many times in the past) is
that a closed consortium will agree on and start shipping a solution
which does not mesh well with the rest of the Internet. A liaison
arrangement can help to avoid that.

    Brian

---

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 01:22:15 +0000

>arrangement can help to avoid that.

The IETF is mainly a standardization organization. Most of efforts in IETF is for interoperation. IETF produces a bunch of open standards, no secret at all. Then every company can implementation the interface following these standards. Of course, there are many internal implementation, which does not need interoperation with other devices, and they can be closed or secret. Devices can then interoperate with each other as long as the all following the same standards.

Consequently, the main efforts of standardization actually compromise rather than competition. It is all participators to work together towards a consensus, which most of people could live with (in which maybe everybody have something unsatisfied.) So, people are encouraged to discuss, coordinate, merge and make compromises. Working along and producing several competition solutions would NOT be good in any standardization organizations.

---

From: Rene Struik <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:38:42 -0500

Hi Sheng:

I think you quite misinterpreted my email: I was just commenting on 
guessing games re what industry consortia or others may have up their 
sleeves (not easy to control or influence). From the numerous emails, I 
got the impression that "Thread" was actually spelled as "Threat". This 
email exchange would never have happened if it would have been another 
"Attic project X".

Of course, all goodies re striving for convergence and for consensus 
apply (where discussion re relative technical merit could be viewed as 
competition of ideas [and what IETF often does quite liberally]).

Rene

---

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 05:45:12 +0000

>email exchange would never have happened if it would have been another

Sorry for my misinterpret. I missed all the Thread discussion due to my Chinese New Year holidays. I was still catching up. My apologize.

Fortunately, I did not say something wrong. What I said regarding to IETF standardization, interoperation, coordinate, and compromise is generally right and can be applied.

Best regards,

Sheng

>> The IETF is mainly a standardization organization. Most of efforts in IETF is
>for interoperation. IETF produces a bunch of open standards, no secret at all.
>Then every company can implementation the interface following these
>standards. Of course, there are many internal implementation, which does
>not need interoperation with other devices, and they can be closed or secret.
>Devices can then interoperate with each other as long as the all following the
>same standards.
>>
>> Consequently, the main efforts of standardization actually compromise
>rather than competition. It is all participators to work together towards a
>consensus, which most of people could live with (in which maybe everybody
>have something unsatisfied.) So, people are encouraged to discuss,
>coordinate, merge and make compromises. Working along and producing
>several competition solutions would NOT be good in any standardization
>organizations.
>>
>>>     Brian
>>>

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 09:03:23 +0100

I was corrected after I sent the mail below to the list and learned
something new (after consulting with my co-worker Robert).

The specifications are not yet available to all members but only to a
core group of member companies. They will be made available to the them
probably in June.

If the specs become available publically I will post a link to the list.

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 09:28:16 +0100

While I agree with you, Rene, I still think it is useful to look at
other work that is being done (particularly if they appear relevant to
this group).

With regards to the security aspects, I believe at least the following
efforts appear relevant:

 * TR69
 * OMA LWM2M
 * Netconf Zerotouch
 * Certificate management protocols like EST, CMP, etc.
 * IEEE 802.1AR

(Maybe there are others.)

Looking at those examples provides ideas about what worked well and what
didn't.

Ciao
Hannes

On 03/04/2015 04:38 AM, Rene Struik wrote:
>> The IETF is mainly a standardization organization. Most of efforts in
>> IETF is for interoperation. IETF produces a bunch of open standards,
>> no secret at all. Then every company can implementation the interface
>> following these standards. Of course, there are many internal
>> implementation, which does not need interoperation with other devices,
>> and they can be closed or secret. Devices can then interoperate with
>> each other as long as the all following the same standards.
>>
>> rather than competition. It is all participators to work together
>> towards a consensus, which most of people could live with (in which
>> maybe everybody have something unsatisfied.) So, people are encouraged
>> to discuss, coordinate, merge and make compromises. Working along and
>> producing several competition solutions would NOT be good in any
>> standardization organizations.
>>
>>>     Brian
>>>

---

From: Robert Cragie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 12:16:14 +0000

The primary reason for Thread being done in a closed way is to focus on 
the specification and implementation thereof in a tight and controlled 
manner. ZigBee IP, which we did in conjunction with the IETF, resulted 
in continually shifting sands as the specifications kept changing. This 
meant it took a long time, with implementers continually having to 
change code, retest etc. This resulted in a lengthy and drawn out 
development which frankly we can't afford to do in Thread. Sure, there 
are risks with this approach but the aim is to contribute back on the 
"rough consensus and running code" basis. This is not a criticism of the 
IETF at all; it is simply an approach to manage the unpredictability 
which will naturally occur in an open development process. A liaison 
agreement will certainly help and rest assured there are some veterans 
involved in the Thread development who will make sure it is not too weird.

It's no secret that Thread is already based on a number of accepted 
Internet standards (http://threadgroup.org/Downloads.aspx). We have 
already successfully demonstrated Thread running in conjunction with 
another 6LoWPAN implementation, using border routers to connect to a 
server, with end-to-end CoAP transactions taking place. "6LoWPAN" per se 
never has been, nor ever will be an interoperable standard, hence the 
need for activities like Thread and ZigBee IP to ensure that product 
certified as such can be interoperable.

Robert