[iot-wg] some suggestions on "work items" for the WG

My comments inline:


On 29/11/2017 15:01, Jim Reid wrote:
> Here are a few random thoughts about the sorts of things the WG might do. I hope these will spark some discussion. Please note I’m not saying the WG will or won’t adopt any of these suggestions. Or that these are the only topics of interest. This is just an attempt to get everyone to think about the WG’s activities and come forward with their own suggestions.
>
> 1) Interaction with SDOs and industry fora
>
> How could/should the WG engage with these? Do we want updates from (say) AIOTI, IETF, ETSI and so on? Are any members of the WG involved in the IoT work at these sorts of organisations?
==> I follow different IoT WG at the IETF in general,  focusing 
particularly on the LPWAN WG (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lpwan/about/ )
>
> 2) Liaison with government/regulators
>
> What is and isn’t appropriate here?
==> Even though the market forces will define regulation, IMHO, the 
focus for RIPE should be on IoT identification related to data privacy.
>
> 3) Advice/support to the NCC
>
> The NCC gets asked about IoT. They are going to want the WG to provide advice or present the consensus view (if any) of the RIPE community.
>
> 4) Academia
>
> We had a few IoT themed presentations at RIPE75 from academics. Does the WG want more (or less) of that sort of thing? What’s the best way to collaborate with academia and what does the WG want to get from that?
>
> 5) Training & Documentation
>
> Should the WG try to develop training materials/tutorials on IoT, white papers, use cases, best practices and so on? [Probably yes.] If so, what should these focus on and are there any volunteers to help produce these?
==> I volunteer to write a introduction draft on role of identification 
and addressing in IoT
>
>
Sandoche.