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

On 20 Apr 2017, at 10:45, Gordon Lennox wrote:

>> Once again: the main task for a carrier of communication is to do their job to carry the communication.
>>
>> Can we agree on that?
>
> But your access provider does not and cannot provide end-to-end communication. That is not what it says in your contract with them.

I do not wrote end-to-end-communication. Their job is to carry the communication. They are your transit provider. Default is to carry the communication. Other things (failure in doing so, blocking and what not) are exceptions to the general rule.

Ok?

>>> Maybe the IP layer is just not where we should be looking for the solution to specific problems.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not?
>
> I think not in general, and probably not in this case. But I would be happy to hear of informed opinions going in another direction.

Agree, but as you wrote yourself, there are situations where there is agreement (and hopefully in the fine print) that certain things are blocked. And under some circumstances ISPs under the various implementations of the electronic communication directive have the responsibility to act. Normally to protect their network and minimize damage for third parties etc etc.

Still exceptions.

>>> 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!
>
> And then what?

Does not matter how this is resolved. "Better quality" is relative. We need better things. And part of that might very well be with patching. Or by default all ports closed (instead of default open). Etc.

>> 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.
>
> There are always restrictions in procurement. Offering bribes tends to be always out. But here we are talking about public procurement and here the barriers are a bit higher. And if you are going to write rules for public procurement then it can be useful to have a reference base of technical standards from recognised standards organisations. Which is why I cited ETSI and CENELEC.
>
> There have been attempts to get around this by talking about “pre-competitive procurement” as a fellow countryman of yours proposed.
>
> But, wonderful as it could be, you cannot just say: propose stuff that the internet community, including the IETF and W3C and the RIRs and Patrik and all, think is fine.

What I am talking about is to have public sector just asking for well functioning stuff. This has to do with clue. Not change the rules.

   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/20170420/06c942c7/attachment.sig>