[iot-discussion] What role does the SP play in protecting consumers re IoT?

On 19 Apr 2017, at 11:02, Gordon Lennox wrote:

> Anyway I am very wary of giving more control to access providers, of allowing them to take more control, for a number of reasons.

For me one reason is enough:

The basic rule for anyone carrying communication is to carry that communication to the intended destination. As soon as we want exceptions to that rule and responsibility it really really really must be viewed as such. And implemented as such.

Who makes the decision on when where and why to act, how to ensure the pointy tool used is pointy enough, secondary effect, false positives and such.

Once again: the main task for a carrier of communication is to do their job to carry the communication.

Can we agree on that?

> Maybe the IP layer is just not where we should be looking for the solution to specific problems.

Maybe, maybe not?

> And responding to Patrik’s bullets - because I have too! ;-)

:-D

> A. Sort the quality problem. Yes please. But how come big resource-rich companies - make your own list - are patching and patching and then patching again. Until end-of-life? I am not clear what we ought to be able to expect from the rest.

Bingo!

> B. Stickers, seals, logos, MoUs have been popular for a long time. One more? Some more?

I do not know, thats why I asked! :-D

> C. I don’t think the Parliament is going to be that happy recommending that an access provider can cut off a domestic customer suddenly and completely. An awful lot of safeguards would be required. And even then.

Yes, agree. See above on the role of the communication provider.

> D. Public procurement? It would be nice if that was done better from an internet engineering perspective. But public procurement is political. The big battles have tended to be around local preference rather than IPv6. Looking back though we have tried to make the technical rules clearer, both in terms of interconnection and security. GOSIP? Common Criteria? And much more. And we have had national successes which were both good and bad - good for a time and then bad? But if you want to enforce rules then you need a body to make those rules. Sorry Patrik but just asking you is not an option. ;-) So who? ETSI? CENELEC? And I feel not the IETF. RFCs provide “advice to consenting engineers": they are not always ideal procurement specs.

Well, I would not mind having some wrong requirements sometimes. That is why I rather see requirements in procurements than in legislation... And we should not mix up historical bad regulation with procurement requirements.

> See you at 74.

Not me :-(

   paf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/iot-wg/attachments/20170419/59c11ae5/attachment.sig>