On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, I agree with the replies so far, more or less. [...]
As general principle, my preference is for networked home devices to *request* access to its maker's online service, with the owner having the option to decline and to still have a functional device with the basic features all working as a normal person would naturally expect. When I think about arguments for *demanding* access to Internet service, I can think of precisely one for which I am forced to admit there are personally convincing reasons for doing it: emergency firmware update. Even there, I still squirm, and I can sympathize with people who disagree.
Really, if my personal preferences are to rule the day, then everything else ought to be in the category of "you bought a $DEVICE, and it does $FUNCTION just fine, but if you let it call it's mother periodically, then it will also do $OPTION as well, and won't that be nice. Okay? [y/N]" (FWIW, I'm reasonably sure my current employers hold a compatible view on this topic, but— you know— I can't speak for them, of course.) Enabling more local autonomy would make me happier, and my hunch is that this may actually be a minority view in the Internet engineering community, but I'm happy to represent yo. For reals.
This is to say that I agree with Mr. Klensin: there are some places where the current HOMENET drafts are less than optimal in this regard. I can think of ways to improve them to make engineering the local autonomy we're discussing more feasible. (Yes, I'll elaborate in forthcoming messages to the HOMENET list.)
james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering