new paper from the IWGDPT

[Farell FOLLY]

Dear Milton,

“but if you look carefully none of the protocol developments you mention are being applied to connected vehicles”

1) That is not really true, give me a car and I will configure a 6LowPAN network in it and get it connect to the Internet! :D.

2) "None ….. are being applied” does not mean “none …. Can’t be applied”. Indeed, even if you think they are primarily used in automation and entertainment applications in Home, office and factory environments, nothing prevent them (technically) to be used in a connected vehicle and allow remote access/configuration/sensing. 

A simple application could be to attach one or some of those devices to a car and use a gateway to connect to the Internet. If you also look carefully at the LoRaWAN project, you may see that it is possible for a GPS sensor/tracker attached to your car to get connected to the Internet and allow an insurance company to have access to it. There are already many applications like that: connected cars are integral part of smart cities, and as such, it is not very “static”.

But as Steph said at the beginning it is not really nor yet within our scope. We should let that for future discussions ;)


@__f_f__

Best Regards
____________________________________

(Ekue) Farell FOLLY
NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee
linkedin.com/in/farellf 






> On 12 Nov 2018, at 16:30, Mueller, Milton L <milton at GATECH.EDU> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Farrell,
> Very nice that you are familiar with some of the IETF standards related to IoT, but if you look carefully none of the protocol developments you mention are being applied to connected vehicles. They are for more static applications in “automation and entertainment applications in home, office and factory environments.”
>  
> From: Farell FOLLY [mailto:farell at benin2point0.org] 
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 2:49 AM
> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: new paper from the IWGDPT
>  
> Hi all,
>  
> Thanks Stephanie for sharing this.
>  
> @Dr Milton, Internet Protocol is already being used in some of these IoT devices and that applies to cars, too. Especially the 6LowPAN <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6LoWPAN> (IPv6 LoW Power wireless Area Networks) protocol is an adaption of IPv6 for such devices and there is an IETF group dealing with that. (LoRaWAN <https://lora-alliance.org/about-lorawan> is an example of large scale deployment of IoT devices using IP)
>  
> Also, the SSAC is currently studying if and how the IoT (more importantly as the number of devices is expressed in billions) could break some rules in the DNS ecosystem. So we should not deny any possibility too early. I believe that at some point there could an adapted DNS/DNSSEC protocol for the stub servers within IoT devices/gateways. Therefore, it could be a game changer.
>  
> I wish a nice week to all.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> @__f_f__
> 
> Best Regards
> ____________________________________
>  
> (Ekue) Farell FOLLY
> NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee
> linkedin.com/in/farellf <http://linkedin.com/in/farellf> 
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11 Nov 2018, at 21:41, Mueller, Milton L <milton at GATECH.EDU <mailto:milton at GATECH.EDU>> wrote:
>  
> Steph:
> This paper deals with connected vehicles. You say that domain names will “undoubtedly be involved” at some point. I seriously don’t think they will be. The latency involved in resolving domain names would not be suitable for vehicle guidance. It’s not even clear that internet protocol will be involved in these technologies.
>  
> FWIW
> --MM
>   <>
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 11:46 AM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> Subject: new paper from the IWGDPT
>  
>  This is slightly off-topic, but members of this list who track IOT and privacy might be interested in this recently released paper from the Berlin Group (aka the International Working Group on Data Protection in Telecommunications).  No specific focus on the DNS but this working paper is a good roundup of latest data protection thinking on this topic.  There will undoubtedly be domain names involved at some point, the question seems to me to be who will control the data from a content perspective.
> Stephanie Perrin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20181112/69d77b01/attachment.htm>