This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[iot-discussion] Proposed US legislation
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-discussion] Proposed US legislation
- Next message (by thread): [iot-discussion] Proposed US legislation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at ripe.net
Tue Aug 8 16:01:01 CEST 2017
> On 7 Aug 2017, at 22:33, Richard Lamb <richard.lamb at icann.org> wrote: > > "upgradeable IoT devices" While I completely see the point, after all it is base requirement for anything further. I also get very uncomfortable with this strict focus on the technical properties. Personally think there should be much more focus on the human factor and the (management) decisions made. What you really need is those updates to be developed and installed in a timely matter and time and time again it turns out that it is the failure of exactly that process that causes issues. Still on the fence whether this can only be solved by hard regulation and liability or whether we as industry can still create enough of a cultural shift to “do the right thing” under our own momentum. Marco
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-discussion] Proposed US legislation
- Next message (by thread): [iot-discussion] Proposed US legislation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ iot-wg Archives ]