On 03/10/14 19:12, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Friday, October 03, 2014 09:11 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker > <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> As someone with far too many IP addressable devices in my >> house, I am getting rather fed up of every new device >> demanding to be hooked up to a service in the cloud. >> >> Yes, I get the fact that the providers are trying to razor and >> blade me with their business model. But that model only works >> for Gillette because the blade is the most expensive, >> difficult part to make. >> >> As a consumer, these services in the cloud represent a lot of >> risk and a painful integration nightmare. The point of >> installing network addressable switches to control the lights >> is so that they can be turned on and off automatically, not so >> that I can control them from an iPhone where I have to press >> six buttons and wait a minute for the app to load. Then >> another quarter hour while it insists on updating itself. >> >> There is therefore a real need for a standards based device >> that provides the same services these devices expect from 'the >> cloud' and make them available in the local net. And it should >> be really easy to connect a newly purchased device to such a >> cloud. > > While I agree that there is a problem, and largely agree with > your analysis of it, I don't see work here for which the IETF > has the right expertise, at least unless there were some chance > of convincing a WG like Homenet that their boundary router specs > should be expanded adequately to act as a controller for these > families of devices. > > As a more general observation, I think there are a number of > areas where performance and efficiency as seen by end users, as > well as security and privacy, would be well-served by moving > services from shared centralized facilities (e.g., "the cloud") > [back] onto more local networks that fell into the user's > administrative domain and control. The class of devices > described above are, IMO, just one set of instances of the more > general issue. (No hats and all that.) I agree. (And I'm also doing a little work on a side-project along these lines - wonder how many of us are at stuff like that:-) And fwiw, I've not yet hit places so far where there's obvious IETF work to be done in the short term. Longer term there could be but I think it'd depend on some of these activities getting popular first. Cheers, S. > > john > > Disclaimer: I've been doing some "day job" work that is > consistent with some of the ideas suggested above and that > assumes significantly more powerful edge devices for relatively > small networks than we have gotten used to. To the best of my > knowledge, there is no plan to bring any aspect of that work to > the IETF so this is not an IPR disclosure, merely an observation > about external discussions that may be influencing my thinking > and comments. > > >