idnits 2.17.1 draft-iab-smart-object-workshop-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (September 19, 2011) is 4603 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2222' is defined on line 977, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2743' is defined on line 980, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3748' is defined on line 991, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5582' is defined on line 1005, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-core-coap-07 == Outdated reference: A later version (-01) exists of draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-minimal-00 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2222 (Obsoleted by RFC 4422, RFC 4752) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group H. Tschofenig 3 Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks 4 Intended status: Informational J. Arkko 5 Expires: March 22, 2012 Ericsson 6 September 19, 2011 8 Report from the 'Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet' 9 Workshop, 25th March 2011, Prague 10 draft-iab-smart-object-workshop-04.txt 12 Abstract 14 This document provides an overview of a workshop held by the Internet 15 Architecture Board (IAB) on 'Interconnecting Smart Objects with the 16 Internet'. The workshop took place in Prague on March, 25th. The 17 main goal of the workshop was to solicit feedback from the wider 18 community on their experience with deploying IETF protocols in 19 constrained environments. This report summarizes the discussions and 20 lists the conclusions and recommendations to the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF) community. 23 Status of this Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 22, 2012. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. Constrained Nodes and Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 3. Workshop Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 60 3.1. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 61 3.1.1. One Internet vs. Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 62 3.1.2. Domain Specific Stacks and Profiles . . . . . . . . . 9 63 3.1.3. Which Layer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 64 3.2. Sleep Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 65 3.3. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 66 3.4. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 67 4. Conclusions and Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 68 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 69 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 70 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 71 8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 72 Appendix A. Program Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 73 Appendix B. Published Workshop Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 74 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 76 1. Introduction 78 The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) holds occasional workshops 79 designed to consider long-term issues and strategies for the 80 Internet, and to suggest future directions for the Internet 81 architecture. This long-term planning function of the IAB is 82 complementary to the ongoing engineering efforts performed by working 83 groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), under the 84 leadership of the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and area 85 directorates. 87 Today's Internet is experienced by users as a set of applications, 88 such as email, instant messaging, and services on the Web. While 89 these applications do not require users to be present at the time of 90 service execution in many cases they are. There are also substantial 91 differences in performance between the various end devices, but in 92 general end devices participating in the Internet are considered to 93 have high performance. 95 There are, however, a large number of deployed embedded devices and 96 there is substantial value in interconnecting them with the Internet. 97 The term "Internet of Things" denotes a trend where a large number of 98 devices employ communication services offered by the Internet 99 Protocols. Many of these devices are not directly operated by 100 humans, but exist as components in buildings, vehicles, and the 101 environment. There is a large variation in the computing power, 102 available memory, (electrical) power, and communications bandwidth 103 between different types of devices. 105 Many of these devices offer a range of new possibilities or provide 106 additional value for previously unconnected devices. Some devices 107 have been connected using proprietary communication networks in the 108 past but are now migrating to the use of the Internet Protocol suite 109 in order to share the same communication network between all 110 applications and enabling rich communications services. 112 Much of this development can simply run on existing Internet 113 protocols. For instance, home entertainment and monitoring systems 114 often offer a web interface to the end user. In many cases the new, 115 constrained environments can benefit from additional protocols and 116 protocol extensions that help optimize the communications and lower 117 the computational requirements. Examples of currently ongoing 118 standardization efforts targeted for these environments include the 119 "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE)", "IPv6 over Low power WPAN 120 (6LoWPAN)", "Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (ROLL)", and 121 the "Light-Weight Implementation Guidance (LWIG)" working groups at 122 the IETF. 124 This workshop explored the experiences of researchers and developers, 125 when considering the characteristics of constrained devices. 126 Engineers know that many design considerations need to be taken into 127 account when developing protocols and architecture. Balancing 128 between the conflicting goals of code size, economical incentives, 129 power consumption, usability and security is often difficult, as 130 illustrated by Clark, et al. in "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining 131 Tomorrow's Internet". 133 Participants at the workshop discussed the experience and approaches 134 taken when designing protocols and architectures for interconnecting 135 smart objects to the Internet. The scope of the investigations 136 included constrained nodes as well as constrained networks. 138 The call for position paper suggested investigating the area of 139 integration with the Internet in the following categories: 141 o Scalability 143 o Power efficiency 145 o Interworking between different technologies and network domains 147 o Usability and manageability 149 o Security and Privacy 151 The goals of the workshop can be summarized as follows: 153 As many deployed smart objects demonstrate running protocols, like 154 IP, TCP, UDP, HTTP, etc., on constrained devices is clearly is 155 possible. Still, protocol designers, system architects and 156 developers have to keep various limitations in mind. The 157 organizers were interested to discuss the experience with 158 deploying IETF protocols in different constrained environments. 160 Furthermore, the organizers were seeking to identify either issues 161 where current implementers do not yet have solutions or where 162 researchers predict potential issues. 164 The workshop served as a venue to identify problems and to 165 discover common interests that may turn into new work or into 166 changes in direction of already ongoing work at the IETF and or 167 the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). 169 Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the 170 workshop. The views and positions documented in this report are 171 those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB 172 views and positions. 174 2. Constrained Nodes and Networks 176 An observation that lead to the scheduling of the workshop was the 177 presence of constrained devices that are more and more interconnected 178 to the network. So, it is quite natural to ask how these limitations 179 impact the design of the affected nodes. Note that not all nodes 180 suffer from the same set of limitations. 182 Energy constraints: 184 Since wireless communication can be a large portion of the power- 185 budget for wireless devices, reducing unnecessary communication 186 can significantly increase the battery life of a low-end device. 187 The choice of low-power radio being used also has a lot of impact 188 on the overall energy consumption. Sleeping periodically, and 189 often aggressively, when not in use. In some cases, these nodes 190 will only wake periodically to handle needed communications. This 191 constraint is quite in contrast to the "always on" paradigm found 192 in regular Internet hosts. Even in case of non-battery operated 193 devices power is a constraint with respect to energy efficiency 194 goals. 196 Bandwidth constraints: 198 Various low power radio networks offer only ~100 KBit/s or even 199 only a few KBits/s, and show high packet loss as well as high link 200 quality variability. Nodes may be used in usually highly unstable 201 radio environments. The physical layer packet size may be limited 202 (~100 bytes). 204 Memory constraints: 206 The amount of volatile and persistent storage impacts the program 207 executtion has important implications for the functionality of the 208 protocol stack. The Arduino UNO board, for example, provides a 209 developer with 2 KByte RAM and 32 KByte flash memory (without any 210 extensions, such as microSD cards). 212 A system designer also needs to consider CPU constraints, which often 213 relate to energy constraints: a processor with lower performance 214 consumes less energy. As described later in this document the design 215 of the mainboard may allow certain components to be put to sleep to 216 further lower energy consumption. In general, embedded systems are 217 often purpose built with only the hardware components needed for the 218 given task while general purpose personal computers are less 219 constrained with regard to their mainboard layout and typically offer 220 a huge number of optional plug-in peripherals to be connected. A 221 factor that also has to be taken into consideration is the intended 222 usage environment. For example, a humidity sensor deployed outside a 223 building may need to deal with temperatures from -50 C to +85 C even. 224 There are often physical size limitations for smart objects. While 225 traditional mainboards are rather large, such as the Advanced 226 Technology eXtended (ATX) design with a board size of 305 x 244 mm 227 available in many PCs or the mini-ITX design typically found in home 228 theater PCs with 170 x 170 mm, mainboard layouts for embedded systems 229 are typically much smaller, such as the CoreExpress layout with 58 x 230 65 mm, or even smaller. In addition to the plain mainboard 231 additional sensors, peripherals, a power adapter/battery, and a case 232 have to be taken into consideration. Finally, there are cost 233 restrictions as well. 235 The situation becomes more challenging when not only the hosts are 236 constrained but also the network nodes themselves. 238 While there are constantly improvements being made, Moore's law tends 239 to be less effective in the embedded system space than in personal 240 computing devices: Gains made available by increases in transistor 241 count and density are more likely to be invested in reductions of 242 cost and power requirements than into continual increases in 243 computing power. 245 3. Workshop Structure 247 With the ongoing work on connecting smart objects to the Internet 248 there are many challenges the workshop participants raised in more 249 than 70 accepted position papers. With a single workshop day 250 discussions had to be focused and priority was given to those topics 251 that had been raised by many authors. A summary of the identified 252 issues are captured in the subsections below. 254 3.1. Architecture 256 A number of architectural questions were brought up in the workshop. 257 This is natural, as the architectural choices affect the required 258 technical solutions and the need for standards. At this workshop 259 questions regarding the separation of traffic, the need for profiling 260 for application specific domains, the demand for data model specific 261 standardization as well as the design choices of the layer at which 262 functionality should be put were discussed and are briefly summarized 263 below. 265 3.1.1. One Internet vs. Islands 267 Devices that used to be in proprietary or application-specific 268 networks are today migrating to IP networks. There is, however, the 269 question of whether these smart objects are now on the same IP 270 network as any other application as well. Controlled applications, 271 like the fountains in front of the Bellagio hotel in Las Vegas which 272 are operated as a distributed control system [Dolin], probably are 273 not exchanging their control messages over the same network that is 274 also used by hotel guests for their Internet traffic. The same had 275 been argued for the smart grid as well. The question that was raised 276 during the workshop is therefore in what sense are we talking about 277 one Internet or about using IP technology for a separate, walled 278 garden network that is independent of the Internet? 280 Cullen Jennings compared the current state of smart object deployment 281 with the evolution of voice-over-IP: "Initially, many vendors 282 recommended to run VoIP over a separate VLAN or a separate 283 infrastructure. Nobody could imagine how to make the type of real- 284 time guarantees, how to debug it, and how to get it to work because 285 the Internet is not ideally suited for making any types of guarantees 286 for real-time systems. As time went on people got better at making 287 voice work across that type of IP network. They suddenly noticed 288 that having voice running on a separate virtual network than their 289 other applications was a disaster. They couldn't decide if a PC was 290 running a softphone and whether it went on a voice or a data network. 291 At that point people realized that they needed a converged network 292 and all moved to one. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same 293 happens here. Initially, we will see very separated networks. Then, 294 those will be running over the same hardware to take advantage of the 295 cost benefits of not having to deploy multiple sets of wires around 296 buildings. Over time there will be strong needs to directly 297 communicate with each other. We need to be designing the system for 298 the long run. Assuming everything will end up on the same network 299 even if you initially plan to run it in separate networks." 301 It is clearly possible to let sensors in a building communicate 302 through the wireless access points and through the same 303 infrastructure used for Internet access, if you want to. Those who 304 want separation at the physical layer can do so as well. What is, 305 however, important is to make sure that these different deployment 306 philosophies do not force loss of interoperability. 308 The level of interoperability that IP accomplished fostered 309 innovation at the application layer. Ralph Droms reinforced this 310 message by saying: "Bright people will take a phone, build an 311 application and connect it, with the appropriate security controls in 312 place, to the things in my house in ways we have never thought about 313 before. Otherwise we are just building another telephone network." 315 3.1.2. Domain Specific Stacks and Profiles 317 Imagine a home network scenario where a new light bulb is installed 318 that should, out of the box without further configuration, 319 interoperate with the already present light switch from a different 320 vendor in the room. For many this is the desired level of 321 interoperability in the area of smart object design. To accomplish 322 this level of interoperability it is not sufficient to provide 323 interoperability only at the network layer. Even running the same 324 transport protocol (e.g., TCP) and application layer protocol (e.g., 325 HTTP) is insufficient since both devices need to understand the 326 semantics of the payloads for "Turn the light on" as well. 328 Standardizing the entire protocol stack for this specific "light 329 switch/light bulb" scenario is possible. A possible stack would, for 330 example, use IPv6 with a specific address configuration mechanism 331 (such as stateless address autoconfiguration), a network access 332 authentication security mechanism such as PANA, a service discovery 333 mechanism (multicast DNS with DNS-SD), an application layer protocol, 334 for example, Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) (which uses 335 UDP), and the syntax and semantic for the light on/off functionality. 337 As this list shows there is already some amount of protocol 338 functionality that has to be agreed on by various stakeholders to 339 make this scenario work seamlessly. As we approach more complex 340 protocol interactions the functionality quickly becomes more complex: 342 IPv4 and IPv6 on the network layer, various options at the transport 343 layer (such as UDP, TCP, SCTP, DCCP), and there are plenty of choices 344 at the application layer with respect to communication protocols, 345 data formats and data models. Different requirements have lead to 346 the development of a variety of communication protocols: client- 347 server protocols in the style of the original HTTP, publish-subscribe 348 protocols (like SIP or XMPP), store-and-forward messaging (borrowed 349 from the delay tolerant networking community). Along with the 350 different application layer communication protocols come various 351 identity and security mechanisms. 353 With the smart object constraints it feels natural to develop these 354 stacks since each application domain (e.g., health-care, smart grids, 355 home networking) will have their unique requirements and their own 356 community involved in the design process. How likely are these 357 profiles going to be the right match for the future, specifically for 358 the new innovations that will come? How many of these stacks are we 359 going to have? Will the differences in the profiles purely be the 360 result of different requirements coming from the individual 361 application domains or will these mismatches reflect the spirit, 362 understanding and preferences of the community designing them? How 363 many stacks will multi-purpose devices have to implement? 365 Standardizing profiles independently for each application is not the 366 only option. Another option is to let many different applications 367 utilize a common foundation, i.e., a protocol stack that is 368 implemented and utilized by every device. This, however, requires 369 various application domains to be analyzed for their common 370 characteristics and to identify requirements that are common across 371 all of them. The level of difficulty for finding an agreement of how 372 such a foundation stack should look like depends on how many layers 373 it covers and how lightweight it has to be. 375 From the decisions at the workshop it was clear that the available 376 options are not ideal and further discussions are needed. 378 3.1.3. Which Layer? 380 The end-to-end principle states that functionality should be put into 381 the end points instead of into the networks. An additional 382 recommendation, which is equally important, is to put functionality 383 higher up in the protocol stack. While it is useful to make common 384 functionality available as building blocks to higher layers the wide 385 range of requirements by different applications lead to a model where 386 lower layers provide only very basic functionality and more 387 sophisticated features were made available by various applications. 388 Still, there has been the desire to put application layer 389 functionality into the lower layers of the networking stack. A 390 common belief is that performance benefits can be gained if 391 functionality is placed at the lower layers of the protocol stack. 392 This new functionality may be offered in the form of a gateway, which 393 bridges different communication technologies, acts on behalf of other 394 nodes, and offers more generic functionality (such as name-based 395 routing and caching). 397 Two examples of functionality offered at the network layer discussed 398 during the workshops were location, and name-based routing: 400 Location: 402 The notion of location gives each network node the understanding 403 of proximity (e.g., 'I am a light bulb and in the same room as the 404 light switch.'). Today, a router may provide information as to 405 whether other nodes belong to the same subnet or they may provide 406 location information (for example, in the form of GPS based 407 coordinates). However, providing a sense of the specific 408 environment (e.g., a room, building, campus, etc.) is not possible 409 without manual configuration. While it has been a desirable 410 feature for many ubiquitous computing applications to know this 411 type of information and to use it for richer application layer 412 interactions, widespread deployment has not happened yet. 414 Name-based Routing: 416 With the work on recent clean slate architecture proposals, such 417 as the named data networking, flexible naming concepts are being 418 researched to allow application developer to express their 419 application layer concepts in a way that they can be used natively 420 by the underlying networking stack without translation. For 421 example, Jeff Burke provided the example of his work in a theater 422 with a distributed control system of technical equipment (such as 423 projectors, dimmers, and light systems). Application developers 424 name their equipment with human readable identifiers, which may 425 change after the end of a rehearsal, and address them using these 426 names. These variable length based naming concepts raise 427 questions regarding scalability. 429 The workshop participants were not able to come to an agreement about 430 what functionality should be moved from the application layer to the 431 network layer. 433 3.2. Sleep Modes 435 One limitation of smart objects is the available energy. To extend 436 battery life, for example of a watch battery or single AAA battery 437 for months, these small, low power devices have to sleep from 99% to 438 99.5% of their time. For example, a light sensor may wake up to 439 check whether it is night-time to turn on light bulbs. Most parts of 440 the system are off-line most of the time and particularly 441 communication components are put into a sleeping state (e.g., WLAN 442 radio interface) and only very few components of an embedded system 443 board, such as sensors, are triggered periodically. When interesting 444 events happen then these components wake-up other parts of the 445 system, for example a radio interface to connect to the Internet. 446 Every bit is precious, so is every round trip, and every millisecond 447 of radio activity. 449 Many IETF protocols implicitly assume that nodes in a network are 450 always-on and respond to messages, i.e., to maintain a persistent 451 presence on the network in order to respond to periodic messages that 452 are required in order to maintain persistent sessions, connections, 453 security associations, or state. These protocols work well on 454 networks with sufficient network bandwidth, where there is a low cost 455 to receiving/sending messages, and nodes are persistently available 456 on the network. 458 In the early days a machine had gotten a specific IP address 459 allocated and it could use it when it wanted to send an IP packet. 460 You might need to execute an ARP exchange first before sending the 461 packet but you could keep the mapping in the cache for 15 minutes. 463 Nowadays we want to make sure that we are on the right network before 464 we send an IP packet, we run neighbor discovery, we cannot keep 465 neighbor discovery for 15 minutes and so when a node wakes up again 466 it essentially has to re-do it to refresh the cache, we want to run 467 Detecting Network Attachment (DNA) procedures to check that hosts are 468 on the same network either by re-getting an address using the Dynamic 469 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) or by noticing that the node is 470 using the same default gateway because of a received Router 471 Advertisement (RA). Essentially, a number of steps have to be taken 472 before sending a packet. 474 However, these protocols do not work well, if at all, when the cost 475 of sending/receiving those messages is high (in terms of bandwidth or 476 battery life) or in cases where nodes sleep periodically and are not 477 persistently available to receive those messages. A number of issue 478 arise from these almost-always-off nodes. 480 Also a lot of our protocols are getting more chatty. Keeping the 481 receiver up for an additional roundtrip costs extra energy. Protocol 482 messages can also be lengthy, e.g., many protocols carry XML-based 483 payloads. 485 There are a couple of ways to think about how to make the situation 486 less worse: 488 1. The Always-On Assumption 490 When designing a protocol that assumes that the nodes will always 491 be there at least consider an alternative paradigm. For example, 492 with duplicate address detection an alternative would be not to 493 use it. There might be also the option to consider an 494 architecture with a proxy node that these nodes can poll when 495 they boot up to find out whether anyone tried to contact them or 496 whether anything they care about has happened, or the proxy 497 answers on behalf of another node. 499 2. High Cost to Rejoin the Network 501 The goal of these things is to determine whether a wireless node 502 is not moved to another network while it was asleep and that 503 might be a viable thing to do. Expecting a wirelss node to go 504 through all these steps every time it wakes up before it is 505 allowed to send an Ip packet could be considered rather 506 excessive. 508 Can we find ways to reduce the number of protocol interactions 509 that have to be executed for network attachment, including 510 determining whether a node has moved or the environment has 511 changed otherwise? 513 3. Verbose Protocols 515 Some protocols involve multiple roundtrips and/or lengthy 516 messages. As a result, low-powered nodes have to use more power 517 in sending messages and have to stay powered on for a longer 518 period of time as they wait for the protocol exchanges to 519 complete. The best way to address these problems is to ensure 520 that the simplest possible protocol exchanges are used when the 521 protocols in question are designed. However, in some cases 522 alternative encoding formats and compression may also help. 524 One can argue that certain features are not useful in an environment 525 where most nodes are sleeping. The main focus of past investigations 526 has been on IPv6 and ND but other protocols do also deserve a deeper 527 investigation, such as DNS, and DHCP. 529 During the protocol design phase certain protocols were assumed to be 530 used in a human-to-device context and therefore it was argued that 531 the verbose encoding is helpful. Examples are the Hypertext Transfer 532 Protocol (HTTP), the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), and 533 Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). Nowadays these 534 protocols are also being considered and used in device-to-device 535 communication and the verbose nature is not helpful. 537 While the principles seem to be most useful for low-power, battery 538 powered devices they would also be useful for other devices as well. 539 Energy efficiency is useful for normal devices as well, such as 540 laptops and smart phones. 542 For example, consider energy consumption in a home environment. The 543 question is whether it will save more energy than it uses and 544 therefore one has to consider the overall energy consumption of the 545 entire solution. This is not always an easy question to answer. 546 IEEE 802.11 nodes, for example, use a lot of power if they cannot be 547 made to sleep most of the time. A light bulb may use less power but 548 there is also the device that controls the bulb that may consume a 549 lot of energy all the time. In total, more energy may be consumed 550 when considering these two devices together. 552 3.3. Security 554 In the development of a smart object applications, as with any other 555 protocol application solution, security has to be considered early in 556 the design process. As such, the recommendations currently provided 557 to IETF protocol architects, such as RFC 3552 [RFC3552], and RFC 4101 558 [RFC4101], apply also to the smart object space. 560 While there are additional constraints, as described in Section 2, 561 security has to be a mandatory part of the solution. The hope is 562 that this will lead to implementations that provide security 563 features, deployments that utilize these, and finally that this leads 564 to use of better security mechanisms. It is important to point out 565 that the lack of direct user interaction will place hard requirements 566 on deployment models, configuration mechanisms, and software upgrade/ 567 crypto agility mechanisms. 569 Since many of the security mechanisms allow for customization, 570 particularly with regard to the cryptographic primitives utilized, 571 many believe that IETF security solutions are usable without 572 modifications in a large part of the smart object domain. Others 573 call for new work on cryptographic primitives that make use of a 574 single primitive (such as the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)) as 575 a building block for all cryptographic functions with the benefit of 576 a smaller footprint of the overall solution. Specifically the 577 different hardware limitations (e.g., the hardware architecture of 578 certain embedded devices prevents pipelining to be utilized). In the 579 excitement for new work on optimizations of cryptograhpic primitives 580 other factors have to be taken into consideration that influence 581 successful deployment, such as widespread support in libraries, as 582 well as intellectual property rights (IPR). As an example of the 583 latter aspect the struggle of Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC)-based 584 cryptographic algorithms to find deployment can partially be 585 attributed to the IPR situation. The reuse of libraries providing 586 cryptographic functions is clearly an important way to use available 587 memory resources in a more efficient way. To deal with the 588 performance and footprint concerns investigations into offloading 589 certain resource-hungry functions to parties that possess more 590 cryptographic power have been considered. For example, the ability 591 to delegate certificate validation to servers has been standardized 592 in the IETF before (see Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) in 593 the Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) and in Transport 594 Layer Security (TLS)). 596 Focusing only on the cryptographic primitives would be shortsighted; 597 many would argue that this is the easy part of a smart object 598 security solution. Key management and credential enrollment, 599 however, are considered a big challenge by many particularly when 600 usability requirements have to be taken into account. Another group 601 of challenges is seen in the privacy area where the ongoing work on 602 smart grids could be mentioned where concerns regarding the ability 603 of others to keep track of the user's energy usage consumption (and 604 the associated conclusions) even in an aggregated form have been 605 voiced. As another example, it is easy to see how a scale that is 606 connected to the Internet for uploading weight information to a 607 social network could lead to privacy concerns. While security 608 mechanisms used to offer protection of the communication between 609 different parties also provide a certain degree of privacy protection 610 they are clearly not enough to address all concerns. Even with the 611 best communication security and access control mechanisms in place 612 one still needs additional safeguards against the concerns mentioned 613 in the examples. 615 While a lot can be said about how desirable it would be to deploy 616 more security protocols on the entire Internet, practical 617 considerations regarding usability and the incentives of the 618 stakeholders involved have often lead to slower adaption. 620 3.4. Routing 622 A smart object network environment may also employ routers under 623 similar constraints as the end devices. Currently two approaches to 624 routing in these low power and lossy networks are under 625 consideration, namely mesh-under and route-over. The so-called mesh- 626 under approach places routing functions below at the link layer and 627 consequently all devices appear as immediate neighbors at the network 628 layer. With the route-over approach routing is done at the IP layer 629 and none in the link layer. Each physical hop appears as a single IP 630 hop (ignoring devices that just extend the physical range of 631 signaling, such as repeaters). Routing in this context means running 632 a routing protocol. IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy 633 Networks (RPL) [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl], for example, belongs to the 634 route-over category. 636 From an architectural point of view there are several questions that 637 arise from where routing is provided, for example: 639 o Protocols often assume that link characteristics are predictable 640 when communicating with any device attached to the same link. 641 Latency, throughput, and reliability may vary considerably between 642 different devices that are multiple link layer hops away. What 643 timeout should be used? What happens if a device is unreachable? 644 In case of default router selection two advertised routers may be 645 a different number of hops away. Should a device have visibility 646 into the path to make a decision and what path characteristics 647 would be useful to have? 649 o Scoped message delivery to a neighboring IP hop (via link-local 650 addressing) allows certain types of IP protocols to communicate 651 with their immediate neighbors and to therefore scope their 652 recipients. A link-local multicast message will be received by 653 all nodes in the same IP link local realm unless some special 654 optimizations are provided by the link layer. 656 o When path computations are done at the link layer as well as on 657 the network layer then what coordination needs to take place? 659 When multiple different link layer technologies are involved in a 660 network design then routing at layer 3 has to be provided in any 661 case. [I-D.routing-architecture-iot] talks about these tradeoffs 662 between route-over and mesh-under in detail. Furthermore, those who 663 decide about the deployment have to determine how to connect smart 664 objects to the Internet infrastructure and a number of wired and 665 wireless technologies may be suitable for a specific deployment. 666 Depending on the chosen technologies the above-mentioned mesh-under 667 vs. route-over approach will have to be decided and further decisions 668 will have to be made about the choice of a specific routing protocol. 670 In 2008 the IETF formed the Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks 671 (ROLL) working group to specify a routing solution for smart object 672 environments. During its first year of existence, the working group 673 studied routing requirements in details (see [RFC5867], [RFC5826], 674 [RFC5673], [RFC5548]), worked on a protocol survey comparing a number 675 of existing routing protocols, including Ad hoc On-Demand Distance 676 Vector (AODV)-style of protocols [RFC3561], against the identified 677 requirements. The protocol survey [I-D.ietf-roll-protocols-survey] 678 was inconclusive and abandoned without giving rise to publication of 679 an RFC. 681 The ROLL WG concluded that a new routing protocol satisfying the 682 documented requirements has to be developed and the work on the RPL 683 was started, as the IETF routing protocol for smart object networks. 684 Nevertheless, controversial discussions at the workshop about which 685 routing protocols is best in a given environment are still ongoing. 686 Thomas Clausen, for example, argued for using an AODV-like routing 687 protocol in [Clausen]. 689 4. Conclusions and Next Steps 691 The workshop allowed the participants to get exposed to interesting 692 applications and their requirements (buildings, fountains, theater, 693 etc.), to have discussions about radically different architectures 694 and their issues (e.g., information centric networking), to look at 695 existing technology from a new angle (sleep nodes, energy 696 consumption), to focus on some details of the protocol stack 697 (neighbour discovery, security, routing) and to implementation 698 experience. 700 One goal of the workshop was to identify areas that require further 701 investigation. The list below reflects the thoughts of the workshop 702 participants as expressed on the day of the workshop. Note that the 703 suggested items concern potential work by the IETF and the IRTF and 704 the order does not imply a particular preference. 706 Security: 708 A discussion of security is provided in Section 3.3. In general, 709 security related protocol exchanges and the required amount of 710 computational resource requirements can contribute significantly 711 to the overall processing. Therefore, it remains a challenge how 712 to accomplish performance improvements without sacrifying the 713 overall security level taking the usability of the entire system 714 into consideration. 716 Another challenge is how to balance the security and performance 717 needs of smart objects with the interoperability requirements of 718 hosts on the Internet since different suites of algorithms may 719 tend to be chosen for these different environments. This involves 720 trade-offs between performance on the smart objects versus end-to- 721 end security. Solutions that mandate a "trusted" middlebox whose 722 only role is to terminate security associations tend to be frowned 723 upon from the security perspective, especially since end-users of 724 challenged devices (where those exist) are unlikely to understand 725 the security consequences of such middleboxes. 727 The discussion concluded with the following recommendations: 729 * Investigate usability in cryptographic protocol design with 730 regard to credential management. As an example, the Bluetooth 731 pairing mechanism was mentioned as a simple and yet reasonably 732 secure method of introducing devices into a new environment. 733 In fact, the IETF working group 'Credential and Provisioning 734 (ENROLL)' working group was established years ago to deal with 735 this topic but was terminated prematurely due to lack of 736 progress. The email archive still exists and is available 738 [enroll] and may provide useful historical information. 740 * Standardized authentication and key exchange mechanisms should 741 be surveyed for suitability in smart object environments with 742 respect to message size, computational performance, number of 743 messages, codesize, and main memory requirements. A starting 744 point of such an investigation (in case of IKEv2) was provided 745 by Tero Kivinen with [I-D.kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-minimal] and a 746 suitable venue for discussion could be the recently established 747 Light-Weight Implementation Guidance (LWIG) working group 748 [LWIG]. 750 * Research has to be done in the area of lightweight 751 cryptographic primitives, namely block ciphers, stream ciphers, 752 and cryptographic hash functions. Worthwhile to mention is 753 early work with the National Institute of Standards and 754 Technology (NIST) new cryptographic hash algorithm 'SHA-3' 755 competition. A suitable forum for discussion is the IRTF 756 Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG) [CFRG]. 758 The difficulty and impact of choosing specialised algorithms for 759 smart objects should not be underestimated. Issues that arise 760 include the additional specification complexity (e.g., TLS already 761 has 100's of ciphersuites defined, most of which are unused in 762 practice), the long latency in terms of roll out (many hosts are 763 still using deprecated algorithms 5-10 years after those 764 algorithms were deprecated) and the barriers that IPR-encumbered 765 schemes present to widespread deployment. While research on this 766 topic within CFRG and the cryptographic research community is a 767 very worthwhile goal, any such algorithms will likely have to 768 offer very significant benefits before they will be broadly 769 adopted. 20% less CPU is unlikely to be a winning argument no 770 matter what an algorithm inventor believes. 772 Energy Design Considerations: 774 One part of the workshop was focused on the discussion of energy 775 implications for IETF protocol design with proposals being made 776 how to extend protocols to better support nodes that are mostly 777 sleeping. Discussion are encouraged to take place at the RECIPE 778 mailing list [RECIPE]. The workshop position paper [Wasserman] by 779 Margaret Wasserman provides a good starting point for further 780 investigations. 782 Information/Content Centric Networking: 784 Information/Content Centric Networking is about accessing named 785 content and a number of research projects have emerged around this 786 theme. At this point in time the work is not yet ready for 787 standardization in the IETF. Instead, the formation of an IRTF 788 research group has been proposed and more details are available on 789 the IRTF DISCUSS mailing list [irtf-discuss]. 791 Architectural Guidelines: 793 Participants suggested developing an architectural write-up about 794 what can be done with the IETF protocols we have today and how 795 these different elements may be combined to offer an explanation 796 for the broader community. This would be a task for the Internet 797 Architecture Board (IAB). An example of prior work that serves as 798 input is [I-D.baker-ietf-core]. 800 Network Management: 802 While this topic did not make it onto the workshop agenda it was 803 considered useful to start a discussion about how to implement 804 network management protocols, such as Network Configuration 805 Protocol (NETCONF), on smart objects. The following position 806 papers may be useful as a starting point for further discussions 807 [Ersue], [Schoenwaelde]. An IETF draft is also available 808 [I-D.hamid-6lowpan-snmp-optimizations]. 810 Congestion Control: 812 When smart objects transmit sensor readings to some server on the 813 Internet then these protocol interactions often carry a small 814 amount of data and happen infrequently, although regularly. With 815 the work on new application protocols, like the CoAP 816 [I-D.ietf-core-coap], the question of congestion control mechanism 817 should be used at the underlying transport protocol or by the 818 application protocol itself. [I-D.eggert-core-congestion-control] 819 is a starting point for the CoAP protocol but further work is 820 needed. 822 Data Models: 824 Standardization of application layer protocols is important but 825 does not ensure that, for example, a light switch and a light bulb 826 are able to interact with each other. One area where participants 827 saw the need for further work was in the area of data models. 828 While prior IETF standardization work on, for example, location 829 [GEOPRIV] can be re-used the question was raised where the IETF 830 should focus their standardization efforts on since domain 831 expertise in each area will be needed. As potential example 832 energy pricing was discussed, with an example provided by 833 [I-D.jennings-energy-pricing]. 835 Discovery: 837 Additional extensions to developed discovery protocols (such as 838 mDNS) may be needed for the smart object environment. 840 Home Networking: 842 Home network architectures should take into account the 843 possibility of smart objects and dedicated subnetworks focusing on 844 smart objects. A new working group, Home Networking (HOMENET) 845 [FUN], has been proposed after the workshop to look at this topic. 847 Routing: 849 Changing radio conditions and link fluctuation may lead to the 850 need for re-numbering. Workshop participants argued that work 851 should be started on the multi-link subnetworks to mitigate this 852 problem, i.e., to extend the notion of a subnet to be able to span 853 multiple links. With the publication of RFC 4903 [RFC4903] the 854 Internet Architecture Board had looked into this topic already and 855 provided pros and cons. 857 The applicability of specific routing protocols designed for smart 858 object networks needs further investigation. The ROLL working 859 group is chartered with the task of constructing an applicability 860 document for the RPL protocol, for instance. 862 5. Security Considerations 864 The workshop discussions covered a range of potential engineering 865 activities, each with its own security considerations. As the IETF 866 community begins to pursue specific avenues arising out of this 867 workshop, addressing relevant security requirements will be crucial. 869 As described in this report part of the agenda was focused on the 870 discussion of security, see Section 3.3. 872 6. Acknowledgements 874 We would like to thank all the participants for their position 875 papers. The authors of the position papers were invited to the 876 workshop. 878 Big thanks to Elwyn Davies for helping us to fix language bugs. We 879 would also like to thank Andrei Robachevsky, Thomas Clausen, and 880 Henning Schulzrinne for their review comments. 882 Additionally, we would like to thank Ericsson and Nokia Siemens 883 Networks for their financial support. 885 7. IANA Considerations 887 This document does not require actions by IANA. 889 8. Informative References 891 [CFRG] McGrew (Chair), D., "IRTF Crypto Forum Research Group 892 (CFRG)", http://irtf.org/cfrg , June 2011. 894 [Clausen] Clausen, T. and U. Herberg, "Some Considerations on 895 Routing in Particular and Lossy Environments", IAB 896 Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop, 897 Prague, Czech Republic, http://www.iab.org/wp-content/ 898 IAB-uploads/2011/03/Clausen.pdf, March 2011. 900 [Dolin] Dolin, B., "Application Communications Requirements for 901 'The Internet of Things'", IAB Interconnecting Smart 902 Objects with the Internet Workshop, Prague, Czech Republic 903 , http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/ 904 Ersue.pdf, March 2011. 906 [Ersue] Ersue, M. and J. Korhonen, "Ersue / Korhonen Smart Object 907 Workshop Position Paper", IAB Interconnecting Smart 908 Objects with the Internet Workshop, Prague, Czech Republic 909 , http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/ 910 Ersue.pdf, March 2011. 912 [FUN] "FUture home Networking (FUN) Mailing List", 913 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fun , June 2011. 915 [GEOPRIV] "IETF Geographic Location/Privacy Working Group", 916 http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/ , June 2011. 918 [I-D.baker-ietf-core] 919 Baker, F. and D. Meyer, "Internet Protocols for the Smart 920 Grid", draft-baker-ietf-core-15 (work in progress), 921 April 2011. 923 [I-D.eggert-core-congestion-control] 924 Eggert, L., "Congestion Control for the Constrained 925 Application Protocol (CoAP)", 926 draft-eggert-core-congestion-control-01 (work in 927 progress), January 2011. 929 [I-D.hamid-6lowpan-snmp-optimizations] 930 Schoenwaelder, J., Mukhtar, H., Joo, S., and K. Kim, "SNMP 931 Optimizations for Constrained Devices", 932 draft-hamid-6lowpan-snmp-optimizations-03 (work in 933 progress), October 2010. 935 [I-D.ietf-core-coap] 936 Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., Bormann, C., and B. Frank, 937 "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", 938 draft-ietf-core-coap-07 (work in progress), July 2011. 940 [I-D.ietf-roll-protocols-survey] 941 Tavakoli, A., Dawson-Haggerty, S., and P. Levis, "Overview 942 of Existing Routing Protocols for Low Power and Lossy 943 Networks", draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey-07 (work in 944 progress), April 2009. 946 [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl] 947 Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Clausen, T., Hui, J., 948 Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., and J. 949 Vasseur, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and 950 Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-roll-rpl-19 (work in 951 progress), March 2011. 953 [I-D.jennings-energy-pricing] 954 Jennings, C. and B. Nordman, "Communication of Energy 955 Price Information", draft-jennings-energy-pricing-01 (work 956 in progress), July 2011. 958 [I-D.kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-minimal] 959 Kivinen, T., "Minimal IKEv2", 960 draft-kivinen-ipsecme-ikev2-minimal-00 (work in progress), 961 February 2011. 963 [I-D.routing-architecture-iot] 964 Hui, J. and J. Vasseur, "Routing Architecture in Low-Power 965 and Lossy Networks (LLNs)", 966 draft-routing-architecture-iot-00 (work in progress), 967 March 2011. 969 [LWIG] "IETF Light-Weight Implementation Guidance (LWIG) Working 970 Group", http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lwig/charter/ , 971 June 2011. 973 [RECIPE] "Reducing Energy Consumption with Internet Protocols 974 Exploration (RECIPE) Mailing List", 975 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe , June 2011. 977 [RFC2222] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer 978 (SASL)", RFC 2222, October 1997. 980 [RFC2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program 981 Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000. 983 [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC 984 Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, 985 July 2003. 987 [RFC3561] Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., and S. Das, "Ad hoc On- 988 Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing", RFC 3561, 989 July 2003. 991 [RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H. 992 Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", 993 RFC 3748, June 2004. 995 [RFC4101] Rescorla, E. and IAB, "Writing Protocol Models", RFC 4101, 996 June 2005. 998 [RFC4903] Thaler, D., "Multi-Link Subnet Issues", RFC 4903, 999 June 2007. 1001 [RFC5548] Dohler, M., Watteyne, T., Winter, T., and D. Barthel, 1002 "Routing Requirements for Urban Low-Power and Lossy 1003 Networks", RFC 5548, May 2009. 1005 [RFC5582] Schulzrinne, H., "Location-to-URL Mapping Architecture and 1006 Framework", RFC 5582, September 2009. 1008 [RFC5673] Pister, K., Thubert, P., Dwars, S., and T. Phinney, 1009 "Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy 1010 Networks", RFC 5673, October 2009. 1012 [RFC5826] Brandt, A., Buron, J., and G. Porcu, "Home Automation 1013 Routing Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks", 1014 RFC 5826, April 2010. 1016 [RFC5867] Martocci, J., De Mil, P., Riou, N., and W. Vermeylen, 1017 "Building Automation Routing Requirements in Low-Power and 1018 Lossy Networks", RFC 5867, June 2010. 1020 [Schoenwaelde] 1021 Schoenwaelde, J., Tsou, T., and B. Sarikaya, "Protocol 1022 Profiles for Constrained Devices", IAB Interconnecting 1023 Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop, Prague, Czech Re 1024 public, http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/ 1025 Schoenwaelder.pdf, March 2011. 1027 [Wasserman] 1028 Wasserman, M., "It's Not Easy Being "Green"", IAB 1029 Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop, 1030 Prague, Czech Republic, http://www.iab.org/wp-content/ 1031 IAB-uploads/2011/03/Wasserman.pdf, March 2011. 1033 [enroll] "IETF Credential and Provisioning Working Group Mailing 1034 List", http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/ietf-enroll/ , 1035 June 2011. 1037 [irtf-discuss] 1038 "Draft ICN RG Charter on IRTF DISCUSS Mailing List", http: 1039 //www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irtf-discuss/current/ 1040 msg00041.html , May 2011. 1042 Appendix A. Program Committee 1044 The following persons are responsible for the organization of the 1045 associated workshop and are responsible also for this event: Jari 1046 Arkko, Hannes Tschofenig, Bernard Aboba,Carsten Bormann, David 1047 Culler, Lars Eggert, JP Vasseur, Stewart Bryant, Adrian Farrel, Ralph 1048 Droms, Geoffrey Mulligan, Alexey Melnikov, Peter Saint-Andre, Marcelo 1049 Bagnulo, Zach Shelby, Isidro Ballesteros Laso, Fred Baker, Cullen 1050 Jennings, Manfred Hauswirth, and Lukas Kencl. 1052 Appendix B. Published Workshop Material 1054 Information about the workshop can be found at the IAB webpage: 1055 http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/smartobjects/ 1057 71 position papers were submitted to the workshop: 1059 1. Deployment Experience with Low Power Lossy Wireless Sensor 1060 Networks by C. Adjih, E. Baccelli, P. Jacquet, P. Minet, M. 1061 Philipp, and G. Wittenburg 1063 2. CoAP improvements to meet embedded device hardware constraints 1064 by Davide Barbieri 1066 3. Unified Device Networking Protocols for Smart Objects by Daniel 1067 Barisic and Anton Pfefferseder 1069 4. Simplified neighbour cache implementation in RPL/6LoWPAN by 1070 Dominique Barthel 1072 5. Home Control in a consumer's perspective by Anders Brandt 1074 6. Authoring Place-based Experiences with an Internet of Things: 1075 Tussles of Expressive, Operational, and Participatory Goals by 1076 Jeff Burke 1078 7. A Dynamic Distributed Federated Approach for the Internet of 1079 Things by Diego Casado Mansilla, Juan Ramon Velasco Perez, and 1080 Mario Lopez-Ramos 1082 8. Quickly interoperable Internet of Things using simple 1083 transparent gateways by Angelo P. Castellani, Salvatore Loreto, 1084 Nicola Bui, and Michele Zorzi 1086 9. Position Paper of the Brno University of Technology Department 1087 of Telecommunications by Vladimir Cervenka, Lubomir Mraz, Milan 1088 Simek, Karel Pavlata 1090 10. Secure Access to IOT Network: An Application-based Group Key 1091 Approach by Samita Chakrabarti, and Wassim Haddad 1093 11. Domain-Insulated Autonomous Network Architecture (DIANA) by W. 1094 Chun 1096 12. Yet Another Definition on Name, Address, ID, and Locator 1097 (YANAIL) by W. Chun 1099 13. The Challenge of Mobility in Low Power Networks by E. Davies 1101 14. If the routing protocol is so smart, why should neighbour 1102 discovery be so dumb? by Nicolas Dejean 1104 15. Making Smart Objects IPv6 Ready: Where are we? by M. Durvy and 1105 M. Valente 1107 16. Position Paper on "Interconnecting Smart Objects with the 1108 Internet" by Mehmet Ersue, and Jouni Korhonen 1110 17. The Real-time Enterprise: IoT-enabled Business Processes by 1111 Stephan Haller, and Carsten Magerkurth 1113 18. Making Internet-Connected Objects readily useful by Manfred 1114 Hauswirth, Dennis Pfisterer, Stefan Decker 1116 19. Some Considerations on Routing in Particular and Lossy 1117 Environments by Thomas Clausen, and Ulrich Herberg 1119 20. A Security Protocol Adaptation Layer for the IP-based Internet 1120 of Things by Rene Hummen, Tobias Heer, and Klaus Wehrle 1122 21. Simplified SIP Approach for the Smart Object by Ryota Ishibashi, 1123 Takumi Ohba, Arata Koike, and Akira Kurokawa 1125 22. Mobility support for the small and smart Future Internet devices 1126 by Antonio J. Jara, and Antonio F. G. Skarmeta 1128 23. The Need for Efficient Reliable Multicast in Smart Grid Networks 1129 by J. Jetcheva, D. Popa, M.G. Stuber, and H. Van Wyk 1131 24. Lightweight Cryptography for the Internet of Things by Masanobu 1132 Katagi, and Shiho Moriai 1134 25. Thoughts on Reliability in the Internet of Things by James 1135 Kempf, Jari Arkko, Neda Beheshti, and Kiran Yedavalli 1137 26. IKEv2 and Smart Objects by Tero Kivinen 1139 27. Position Paper on Thing Name Service (TNS) for the Internet of 1140 Things (IoT) by Ning Kong, and Shuo Shen 1142 28. Connecting Smart Objects to Wireless WANs by Suresh Krishnan 1144 29. Towards an Information-Centric Internet with more Things by D. 1145 Kutscher, and S. Farrell 1147 30. Application of 6LoWPAN for the Real-Time Positioning of 1148 Manufacturing Assets by Jaacan Martinez and Jose L. M. Lastra 1150 31. Lighting interface to wireless network by Jaroslav Meduna 1152 32. Social-driven Internet of Connected Objects by Paulo Mendes 1154 33. Protocols should go forward that are required by non IP based 1155 protocols by Tsuyoshi Momose 1157 34. Web services for Wireless Sensor and Actuator Networks by Guido 1158 Moritz 1160 35. Connecting BT-LE sensors to the Internet using Ipv6 by Markus 1161 Isomaeki, Kanji Kerai, Jari Mutikainen, Johanna Nieminen, 1162 Basavaraj Patil, Teemu Savolainen, and Zach Shelby 1164 36. Position Paper by Bruce Nordman by Bruce Nordman 1166 37. Issues and Challenges in Provisioning Keys to Smart Objects by 1167 Yoshihiro Ohba, and Subir Das 1169 38. Challenges and Solutions of Secure Smart Environments by Eila 1170 Ovaska and Antti Evesti 1172 39. Research Experiences about Internetworking Mechanisms to 1173 Integrate Embedded Wireless Networks into Traditional Networks 1174 by Jose F. Martinez, Ivan Corredor, and Miguel S. Familiar 1176 40. Scalable Video Coding in Networked Environment by Naeem Ramzan, 1177 Tomas Piatrik, and Ebroul Izquierdo 1179 41. Challenges in Opportunistic Networking by Mikko Pitkaenen, and 1180 Teemu Kaerkkaeinen 1182 42. Position Statement by Neeli R. Prasad, and Sateesh Addepalli 1184 43. A Gateway Architecture for Interconnecting Smart Objects to the 1185 Internet by Akbar Rahman, Dorothy Gellert, Dale Seed 1187 44. Routing Challenges and Directions for Smart Objects in Future 1188 Internet of Things by T. A. Ramrekha, E. Panaousis, and C. 1189 Politis 1191 45. 6LoWPAN Extension for IPsec by Shahid Raza, Thiemo Voigt, and 1192 Utz Roedig 1194 46. Connected Vehicle as Smart Object(s) by Ryuji Wakikawa 1196 47. Problem and possible approach of development and operation of 1197 Smart Objects by Shoichi Sakane 1199 48. Connecting Passive RFID Tags to the Internet of Things by Sandra 1200 Dominikus, and Joern-Marc Schmidt 1202 49. Protocol Profiles for Constrained Devices by Juergen 1203 Schoenwaelde, Tina Tsou, and Behcet Sarikaya 1205 50. Multihoming for Sensor Networks by J. Soininen 1207 51. Internet Objects for Building Control by Peter van der Stok, and 1208 Nicolas Riou 1210 52. Optimal information placement for Smart Objects by Shigeya 1211 Suzuki 1213 53. Multi-National Initiative for Cloud Computing in Health Care 1214 (MUNICH) by Christoph Thuemmler 1216 54. The time of the hourglass has elapsed by Laurent Toutain, 1217 Nicolas Montavont, and Dominique Barthel 1219 55. Sensor and Actuator Resource Architecture by Vlasios Tsiatsis, 1220 Jan Hoeller, and Richard Gold 1222 56. IT'S NOT EASY BEING "GREEN" by Margaret Wasserman 1224 57. Trustworthy Wireless Industrial Sensor Networks by Markus 1225 Wehner, Thomas Bartzsch, Dirk Burggraf, Sven Zeisberg, Alexis 1226 Olivereau, and Oualha Nouha 1228 58. Interconnecting smart objects through an overlay networking 1229 architecture by Anastasios Zafeiropoulos, Athanassios 1230 Liakopoulos and Panagiotis Gouvas 1232 59. Building trust among Virtual Interconnecting Smart Objects in 1233 the Future Internet by Theodore Zahariadic, Helen C. Leligou, 1234 Panagiotis Trakadas, and Mischa Dohler 1236 60. Experience and Challenges of Integrating Smart Devices with the 1237 Mobile Internet by Zhen Cao, and Hui Deng 1239 61. The "mesh-under" versus "route over" debate in IP Smart Objects 1240 Networks by JP Vasseur, and Jonathan Hui 1242 62. Identification and Authentication of IoT Devices by Alper Yegin 1244 63. Security Challenges For the Internet of Things by Tim Polk, and 1245 Sean Turner 1247 64. Application Communications Requirements for 'The Internet of 1248 Things' by Bob Dolin 1250 65. Interoperability Concerns in the Internet of Things by Jari 1251 Arkko 1253 66. Privacy in Ubiquitous Computing by Ivan Gudymenko, and Katrin 1254 Borcea-Pfitzmann 1256 67. The 10 Laws of Smart Object Security Design by Hannes 1257 Tschofenig, and Bernard Aboba 1259 68. Position Paper on "In-Network Object Cloud" Architecture and 1260 Design Goals by Alex Galis, and Stuart Clayman 1262 69. Temptations and Difficulties of Protocols for Smart Objects and 1263 the Internet by Alexandru Petrescu 1265 70. The Internet of Things - Challenge for a New Architecture from 1266 Problems by Gyu Myoung Lee, and Noel Crespi 1268 71. Garrulity and Fluff by Carsten Bormann, and Klaus Hartke 1270 These papers can be retrieved from: 1271 http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/smartobjects/papers/ 1273 The slides are available for download at the following webpage: 1274 http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/smartobjects/agenda.html 1276 Detailed meeting minutes are published here: 1277 http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/smartobjects/minutes.html 1279 Authors' Addresses 1281 Hannes Tschofenig 1282 Nokia Siemens Networks 1283 Linnoitustie 6 1284 Espoo 02600 1285 Finland 1287 Phone: +358 (50) 4871445 1288 Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net 1289 URI: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at 1291 Jari Arkko 1292 Ericsson 1293 Jorvas 02420 1294 Finland 1296 Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net