Jim Zubov <[email protected]> wrote: > I just want to emphasize once again that the relay is end to end TLS. > There are some IoT management solutions on the market, both open source > and proprietary, but as far as I can tell none of them fully follows > the end to end paradigm. I believe it's worth having a universal > cross-vendor solution that handles SNIF device onboarding, maintains > the credentials in a local secure storage, and consolidates https based > management interface hosted by individual devices through SNIF.
Even if SNIF winds up "just" being a standardized way to call-home, I think that has value. I think that some text needs to be added contrasting SNIF to UPnP and RFC6887 (Port Control Protocol). What I haven't heard any comments in on the SECDISPATCH point of view about what to do with this document. Have the SECDISPATCH chairs put it on the agenda, or is there any agreement that maybe IOTOPS should dispatch it? Hannes: what do you think? -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
