Dear all, Thanks Brian for going through all this work, and Tom and Alexandre for providing interesting feedback.
In section 3, it may be more interesting to divide Examples of Limited Domain Requirements into networks containing human end-users and networks that don't contain human end-users (such as industrial systems, sensor networks, IoT, etc, merging the home network and small office network use-cases). It would make the taxonomy a more useful tool for assessing the limited domain requirements, and is better adjusted to how demands for (or requirements/expectations on) these limited domains arise in the real world. That could serve as a basis for elaboration of section 7. More broadly, I share Tom's concerns that this justifies using the IETF as a platform for standardising intRAnets, rather than an intERnet. But On 2018-09-12 22:53, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I'd go a bit further - I think we need to standardize the mechanisms > for identifying and defining the boundary, so that what happens inside > can be effectively contained. That helps everybody. This makes sense, and could perhaps even help constructively with some issues (such as privacy/security issues discussed in SUIT) that arise when specific limitations on node privacy or security as described RFC6973 or RFC8280 aren't relevant, because no human is technically impacted. best regards, Amelia -- Amelia Andersdotter Technical Consultant, Digital Programme ARTICLE19 www.article19.org PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
