Hiya,
On 24/01/18 19:21, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
> > On 24/01/18 15:36, Ted Lemon wrote:
> >> Yes, enrollment is the process by which trust is established. Google
> >> home has an example, but it's rickety. It's actually not too bad for
> >> actual G
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 24/01/18 15:36, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> Yes, enrollment is the process by which trust is established. Google
>> home has an example, but it's rickety. It's actually not too bad for
>> actual Google devices, but the third party enrollment process could
>
Ted Lemon wrote:
> I don't know what unmanaged enrollment really looks like, but sure.
> We've mostly been talking about models for managed enrollment, and
> that seems to be the way the market has been going (with remarkable
> suck-itude, if the Google Home enrollment process is
> I do agree we'd need to know e.g. whether Babel implementations would
> plan to support what flavours of DTLS (e.g. pre-shared keys vs. bare
> public keys vs. certs if they do plan to use DTLS),
I'm not worried about Babel. I am worried about HNCP, since I fear
there's nobody who's both able a
On Jan 24, 2018, at 10:39 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> While I don't disagree with you, I do still wonder if we'd
> not be better off using another term for cases where maybe
> all that are involved are a couple of routers in the home,
> and where there's no external party, such as google in the
>
Hiya,
On 24/01/18 15:36, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Yes, enrollment is the process by which trust is established. Google
> home has an example, but it's rickety. It's actually not too bad for
> actual Google devices, but the third party enrollment process could
> really benefit from some open standards (
Yes, enrollment is the process by which trust is established. Google home has
an example, but it's rickety. It's actually not too bad for actual Google
devices, but the third party enrollment process could really benefit from some
open standards (imho).
> On Jan 24, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Stephen
Hiya,
On 24/01/18 14:55, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I don't know what unmanaged enrollment really looks like, but sure.
> We've mostly been talking about models for managed enrollment, and
> that seems to be the way the market has been going (with remarkable
> suck-itude, if the Google Home enrollment pr
I don't know what unmanaged enrollment really looks like, but sure. We've
mostly been talking about models for managed enrollment, and that seems to be
the way the market has been going (with remarkable suck-itude, if the Google
Home enrollment process is typical). I think it might be worth
Hiya,
On 24/01/18 13:32, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
> > On 24/01/18 02:48, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >>
> >> Stephen Farrell wrote: > - Does this sound
> >> roughly right or off the wall?
> >>
> >> It sounds right. I think that bootstrap of
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 24/01/18 02:48, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>
>> Stephen Farrell wrote: > - Does this sound
>> roughly right or off the wall?
>>
>> It sounds right. I think that bootstrap of security should become an
>> recharter item in the future. Some
Hiya,
On 24/01/18 02:48, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
> > - Does this sound roughly right or off the wall?
>
> It sounds right.
> I think that bootstrap of security should become an recharter item in the
> future. Some kind of BCP on interactions with MUD, SUIT, et
12 matches
Mail list logo
