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/iot-wg@ripe.net/
[iot-wg] In response to questions on ReD (RIPE 77)
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-wg] In response to questions on ReD (RIPE 77)
- Next message (by thread): [iot-wg] GrowthEnabler's "Market Pulse Report for Internet of Things"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Peter Steinhäuser
ps at embedd.com
Sat Oct 20 12:01:12 CEST 2018
Dear Marco, thanks a for the excellent speech at RIPE-77’s IoT session regarding RED and the possible implications. As shortly discussed afterwards in person in my opinion especially the optional 3.3.i requirement (Only compliant software can be loaded) and the definition of the manufaturer requires further clarification. As you pointed out it’s unclear if in the case an alternative firmware is flashed on a device the manufacturer role switches from the device maker to the supplier of the alternative firmware. If that would be the case it would have significant implications, actually positive ones in my opinion. Speaking from a mostly wireless router/home gateway background the difficulties of RED (and similar FCC rulings) are that the regulatory settings (channels, transmit power, DFS….) are set by (driver) software for the majority of the available chipsets in conjunction with the chipset maker’s SDKs. Because of this the device makers cannot control what’s a „compliant software“ is and have to lock down their devices to prevent installing alternative firmwares to their devices. Except for Marvell no chipset maker introduced a technical solution for this regulatory issue. In case RED 3.3.i would define the manufacturer as the entitiy providing the firmware a lockdown would not be required anymore (in the EU) and pave the way for wider adoption of alternative firmwares like OpenWRT. Nevertheless it would make anybody who builds an alternative firmware responsible for it’s compliance. I hope we will get some clarification on that soon. Regards, Peter Steinhaeuser -- embeDD GmbH > Am 18.10.2018 um 16:24 schrieb Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at ripe.net>: > > Dear all, > > If you followed the discussions during RIPE 77, I did not have an immediate answer to the process of establishing a Delegated Act. > > Meanwhile a helpful person has supplied me with some more details: > > The document here https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/adopting-eu-law/implementing-and-delegated-acts_en#implementing-acts contains some more information regarding the process. > > There is also a website that allow you to track delegated acts being prepared: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/regdel/#/home > > And of course my advise remains to also consult with your national regulator on your position under this Directive and its potential extensions. > > Regards, > > Marco Hogewoning > -- > External Relations - RIPE NCC > > > _______________________________________________ > iot-wg mailing list > iot-wg at ripe.net > https://mailman.ripe.net/
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-wg] In response to questions on ReD (RIPE 77)
- Next message (by thread): [iot-wg] GrowthEnabler's "Market Pulse Report for Internet of Things"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ iot-wg Archives ]