Internet Personal Appliance Control (IPAC) BoF

1
Internet Personal Appliance Control (IPAC) BoF

• March 20, 2001, 3.45-4.45pm
• Session Chairs
• Simon Tsang ltstsang_at_research.telcordia.comgt
• Mauricio Arango ltmauricio.arango_at_sun.comgt

2
Agenda

• 5 mins Opening (incl. Agenda bashing)
• Chairs Why were here
• 10 mins S. Moyer draft-tsang-appliances-discuss-
  00
• 14 mins Relationship of other industry bodies to
  IPAC
• D. Marples on OSGi
• P. Iyer on UPnP
• 6 mins The need for IPAC (industrial perspective)
• M. Rahman Panasonic Research view
• E. Schwartz Embrace Networks view
• 20 mins Discussion Time
• Chairs Proposed work areas
• All Open discussion
• 5 mins Wrap-up, agree next steps

3
Appliances mailing list

• Carriers 18 (11)
• Professional services 12 (7)
• Equipment providers 51 (30)
• Software producers 44 (26)
• Research 21 (12)
• Miscellaneous 23 (14)
• (Total 189)

4
Why Were Here

• We know there are applications involving
  appliances which can benefit from additional
  capabilities offered by the Internet.
• Power management
• Remote security management
• Environment management
• (e.g. home automation, in-vehicle, office,
  industrial)
• Medical monitoring

5
Do we want to have to invent new protocols to
enable this to happen, every time we are
presented with a new application domain or set of
appliances?
6
NO.

• Inter-operability, scalability, security,
  management, training, development time, etc.,
  issues.
• Need generic re-usable communication functions.

7
What We Dont Want To Do

• Extend our pet protocol, just because we like
  it, and it works.
• Replicate work that is already being carried out
  by other IETF WGs, IETF BoFs, other standards
  bodies, industry fora.
• Do something that is of no use to anyone.
  (theres enough work in the world already!)

8
Why were here Questions

1. Is there a role for the IETF in this area?
2. Is this work properly addressed by other WGs,
   standards, industry bodies?

Short presentations first. Discussion LATER.
9
Agenda

• 5 mins Opening (incl. Agenda bashing)
• Chairs Why were here
• 10 mins S. Moyer draft-tsang-appliances-discuss-
  00
• 14 mins Relationship of other industry bodies to
  IPAC
• D. Marples on OSGi
• P. Iyer on UPnP
• 6 mins The need for IPAC (industrial perspective)
• M. Rahman Panasonic Research view
• E. Schwartz Embrace Networks view
• 20 mins Discussion Time
• Chairs Proposed work areas
• All Open discussion
• 5 mins Wrap-up, agree next steps

10
Discussion - Protocol Scope 1

• Above Transport Layer

11
Discussion - Protocol Scope 2
P1
IPA-1
IPA-2
P1
Controller
IPA-3
(End-to-end communication)
12
Discussion - Protocol Scope 3
P1
P2
IPA-1
IPA-2
Middlebox
P1
P2
Controller
IPA-3
Middlebox
Out of scope! (in some cases P2P1)
13
Discussion - Questions

1. Is there a role for the IETF in this area?
2. Is this work properly addressed by other WGs,
   standards, industry bodies?

14
Discussion - Proposed Work Items

• Requirements
• Generic application protocol (end-to-end) to
  transport control messages.
• Event notification.
• Security configuration
• Trust relationships and control
• Multiple administrative domains in play?
• Naming, discovery, and registration
• IPA addressing? IPA domain? Other IPAs?
• Protocol recommendation
• Extend existing? or Define new?

15
Mailing listltappliances_at_research.telcordia.comgt
Web pagehttp//www.argreenhouse.com/iapp/ipac/