On 07/15/2014 04:42 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
I believe we are at least in the fortunate situation that nobody's tried hard
to do a naming
provider land grab yet, so there may yet be time to do the right thing.
That's not the point. If you look at most of the consumer-grade IoT devices
that have been announced recently, they all keep the data on their portal and
do not allow you to use the device without sending them your data, so chances
are the device is going to just talk to their portal using a proprietary scheme
and ignore what we want. Which is fine; my point is not that they are evil,
but just that the use case for this may not be quite as broad as we imagine.
I still think it's worth doing, and I hope that over time this stuff moves in
the direction of more flexibility. What we do in homenet can easily either
make that easy or make it hard, so we should try to make it easy.
Oh, ok. But this entire area is going to be pretty darn tricksey to get
right, and we can have some hope
that after enough proprietary we-need-to-get-something-done from
vendors, they'll be somewhat relieved
to have exactly One something that's standardized to support. I've seen
this many times at $routervendor,
even when they have their own business model in mind. So we shouldn't be
too fatalistic... the game is still
young on this account.
Mike
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
