On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Jim Gettys <jg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker > <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Jim Gettys <jg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > There is a serious issue lurking here: it is *not* safe for devices to >> > be >> > without software updates. And it isn't safe to presume the upstream >> > manufacturer is being diligent in providing those updates. And nagging >> > end >> > users to do something that they don't understand is also not a solution. >> >> I think we need to divide divide devices into 'simple enough to not >> need updates' and 'make use of a standard update process'. > > > There are few network connected devices "simple enough to not need updates", > IMHO. Distinguishing those that do from those that don't is just about > impossible. > > Courtesy of Moore's law, even "simple" devices are often/usually based on > millions of lines of code. There are IP network devices and serial bus devices. I would like a mechanism that would allow us to bring serial bus devices into the Internet of things architecture without putting IP on them. I think I could write a formal model of IP and prove an IPstack correct. I certainly would not want to though. And I certainly don't think I could go much more complex. The sort of things I think need to be network addressable but not updatable are things like temperature sensor drivers, motor speed controllers, PID controllers and the like. >> My car has 30 computers in it (and a newer model would likely have >> 60). There is one on every wheel counting the rotations for the ABS >> system. Do I really want them all to be updatable? > > > I think those devices just emit signals, and we don't "talk" to them. I can > see sensors just being "output only" devices (though that creates a > different problem: network pollution. A light switch is a writable device.