On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 11:44 AM Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. I provided some comments at the end of my review. Briefly, I have doubts that this is the best technical approach and so I think if we are to work on this problem we should start by working out the problem statement and requirements first. Have the SECDISPATCH chairs put it on the > agenda, I think putting it on the SECDISPATCH agenda would be appropriate > or is there any agreement that maybe IOTOPS should dispatch it? > I think that would be a bad idea. There's nothing really IoT-specific here. -Ekr > Hannes: what do you think? > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima >
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
