





Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                          H. Tschofenig
Request for Comments: 6574                                      J. Arkko
Category: Informational                                       April 2012
ISSN: 2070-1721


                 Report from the Smart Object Workshop

Abstract

   This document provides an overview of a workshop held by the Internet
   Architecture Board (IAB) on 'Interconnecting Smart Objects with the
   Internet'.  The workshop took place in Prague on 25 March 2011.  The
   main goal of the workshop was to solicit feedback from the wider
   community on their experience with deploying IETF protocols in
   constrained environments.  This report summarizes the discussions and
   lists the conclusions and recommendations to the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF) community.

   Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the
   workshop.  The views and positions documented in this report are
   those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB
   views and positions.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
   and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
   provide for permanent record.  Documents approved for publication by
   the IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see
   Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6574.













Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Constrained Nodes and Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Workshop Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.1.  One Internet vs. Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.2.  Domain-Specific Stacks and Profiles  . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.1.3.  Which Layer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.2.  Sleeping Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.3.  Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.4.  Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   4.  Conclusions and Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   Appendix A.  Program Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Appendix B.  Workshop Materials  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Appendix C.  Accepted Position Papers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Appendix D.  Workshop Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   Appendix E.  IAB Members at the Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . 32


















Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


1.  Introduction

   The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) holds occasional workshops
   designed to consider long-term issues and strategies for the Internet
   and to suggest future directions for the Internet architecture.  This
   long-term planning function of the IAB is complementary to the
   ongoing engineering efforts performed by working groups of the
   Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), under the leadership of the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and area directorates.

   Today's Internet is experienced by users as a set of applications,
   such as email, instant messaging, and services on the Web.  While
   these applications do not require users to be present at the time of
   service execution, in many cases they are.  There are also
   substantial differences in performance among the various end devices,
   but in general end devices participating in the Internet are
   considered to have high performance.

   There are, however, a large number of deployed embedded devices, and
   there is substantial value in interconnecting them with the Internet.
   The term "Internet of Things" denotes a trend where a large number of
   devices employ communication services offered by the Internet
   protocols.  Many of these devices are not directly operated by
   humans, but exist as components in buildings or vehicles, or are
   spread out in the environment.  There is a large variation in the
   computing power, available memory, (electrical) power, and
   communications bandwidth between different types of devices.

   Many of these devices offer a range of new possibilities or provide
   additional value for previously unconnected devices.  Some devices
   have been connected using proprietary communication networks in the
   past but are now migrating to the use of the Internet Protocol suite
   in order to share the same communication network between all
   applications and to enable rich communications services.

   Much of this development can simply run on existing Internet
   protocols.  For instance, home entertainment and monitoring systems
   often offer a Web interface to the end user.  In many cases the new,
   constrained environments can benefit from additional protocols and
   protocol extensions that help optimize the communications and lower
   the computational requirements.  Examples of currently ongoing
   standardization efforts targeted for these environments include the
   Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE), IPv6 over Low power WPAN
   (6LoWPAN), Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks (ROLL), and the
   Light-Weight Implementation Guidance (LWIG) working groups of the
   IETF.





Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   This workshop explored the experiences of researchers and developers
   when considering the characteristics of constrained devices.
   Engineers know that many design considerations need to be taken into
   account when developing protocols and architecture.  Balancing
   between the conflicting goals of code size, economic incentives,
   power consumption, usability, and security is often difficult, as
   illustrated by Clark et al. in "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining
   Tomorrow's Internet" [Tussle].

   Participants at the workshop discussed the experience and approaches
   taken when designing protocols and architectures for interconnecting
   smart objects to the Internet.  The scope of the investigations
   included constrained nodes as well as constrained networks.

   The call for position papers suggested investigating the area of
   integration with the Internet in the following categories:

   o  Scalability

   o  Power efficiency

   o  Interworking between different technologies and network domains

   o  Usability and manageability

   o  Security and privacy

   The goals of the workshop can be summarized as follows:

      As many deployed smart objects demonstrate, running protocols like
      the Internet Protocol Version 4 [RFC0791] and Version 6 [RFC2460],
      the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768], the Transmission
      Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793], the Hypertext Transfer Protocol
      (HTTP) [RFC2616], etc., on constrained devices is clearly
      possible.  Still, protocol designers, system architects, and
      developers have to keep various limitations in mind.  The
      organizers were interested to discuss the experience with
      deploying IETF protocols in different constrained environments.

      Furthermore, the organizers were seeking to identify issues either
      where current implementers do not yet have solutions or where
      researchers predict potential issues.

      The workshop served as a venue to identify problems and to
      discover common interests that may turn into new work or into
      changes in direction of already ongoing work at the IETF and or
      the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).




Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


2.  Constrained Nodes and Networks

   The workshop was spurred by the increasing presence of constrained
   devices on the network.  It is quite natural to ask how these
   limitations impact the design of the affected nodes.  Note that not
   all nodes suffer from the same set of limitations.

   Energy constraints:

      Since wireless communication can be a large portion of the power
      budget for wireless devices, reducing unnecessary communication
      can significantly increase the battery life of a low-end device.
      The choice of low-power radio can also significantly impact the
      overall energy consumption, as can sleeping periodically, when the
      device is not in use.  In some cases, these nodes will only wake
      periodically to handle needed communications.  This constraint is
      quite in contrast to the "always on" paradigm found in regular
      Internet hosts.  Even in the case of non-battery operated devices,
      power is a constraint with respect to energy efficiency goals.

   Bandwidth constraints:

      Various low-power radio networks offer only limited bandwidth, and
      show high packet loss as well as high link quality variability.
      The data transmission rates vary from 20 to 900 kilobits per
      second (e.g., in the case of IEEE 802.15.4).  Nodes may be used in
      usually highly unstable radio environments.  The physical-layer
      packet size may be limited (~100 bytes).

   Memory constraints:

      The amount of volatile and persistent storage impacts the program
      execution and has important implications for the functionality of
      the protocol stack.  The Arduino UNO board, for example, provides
      a developer with 2 KB RAM and 32 KB flash memory (without any
      extensions, such as microSD cards).

   A system designer also needs to consider CPU constraints, which often
   relate to energy constraints: a processor with lower performance
   consumes less energy.  As described later in this document, the
   design of the mainboard may allow certain components to be put to
   sleep to further lower energy consumption.  In general, embedded
   systems are often purpose built with only the hardware components
   needed for the given task, while general-purpose personal computers
   are less constrained with regard to their mainboard layout and
   typically offer a huge number of optional plug-in peripherals to be
   connected.  A factor that also has to be taken into consideration is
   the intended usage environment.  For example, a humidity sensor



Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   deployed outside a building may need to deal with temperatures from
   -50 degrees C to +85 degrees C.  There are often physical size
   limitations for smart objects.  While traditional mainboards are
   rather large, such as the Advanced Technology eXtended (ATX) design
   with a board size of 305 x 244 mm available in many PCs or the mini-
   ITX design typically found in home theater PCs with 170 x 170 mm,
   mainboard layouts for embedded systems are typically much smaller,
   such as the CoreExpress layout with 58 x 65 mm, or even smaller.  In
   addition to the plain mainboard, additional sensors, peripherals, a
   power adapter/battery, and a case have to be taken into
   consideration.  Finally, there are cost restrictions as well.

   The situation becomes more challenging when not only the hosts are
   constrained but also the network nodes themselves.

   While there are constantly improvements being made, Moore's law tends
   to be less effective in the embedded system space than in personal
   computing devices: gains made available by increases in transistor
   count and density are more likely to be invested in reductions of
   cost and power requirements than into continual increases in
   computing power.

3.  Workshop Structure

   With the ongoing work on connecting smart objects to the Internet,
   there are many challenges the workshop participants raised in more
   than 70 accepted position papers.  With a single workshop day,
   discussions had to be focused, and priority was given to those topics
   that had been raised by many authors.  A summary of the identified
   issues are captured in the subsections below.

3.1.  Architecture

   A number of architectural questions were brought up in the workshop.
   This is natural, as the architectural choices affect the required
   technical solutions and the need for standards.  At this workshop,
   questions regarding the separation of traffic, the need for profiling
   for application-specific domains, the demand for data-model-specific
   standardization, as well as the design choices regarding the layer at
   which functionality should be put were discussed and are briefly
   summarized below.

3.1.1.  One Internet vs. Islands

   Devices that used to be in proprietary or application-specific
   networks are today migrating to IP networks.  There is, however, the
   question of whether these smart objects are now on the same IP
   network as any other application.  Controlled applications, like the



Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   fountains in front of the Bellagio hotel in Las Vegas that are
   operated as a distributed control system [Dolin], probably are not
   exchanging their control messages over the same network that is also
   used by hotel guests for their Internet traffic.  The same had been
   argued for smart grids, which are described as follows in
   [SmartGrid]:

      A smart grid is a digitally enabled electrical grid that gathers,
      distributes, and acts on information about the behavior of all
      participants (suppliers and consumers) in order to improve the
      efficiency, reliability, economics, and sustainability of
      electricity services.

   The question that was raised during the workshop is, therefore, in
   what sense are we talking about one Internet or about using IP
   technology for a separate, "walled garden" network that is
   independent of the Internet?

   Cullen Jennings compared the current state of smart object deployment
   with the evolution of Voice over IP (VoIP): "Initially, many vendors
   recommended to run VoIP over a separate VLAN or a separate
   infrastructure.  Nobody could imagine how to make the type of real-
   time guarantees, how to debug it, and how to get it to work because
   the Internet is not ideally suited for making any types of guarantees
   for real-time systems.  As time went on, people got better at making
   voice work across that type of IP network.  They suddenly noticed
   that having voice running on a separate virtual network than their
   other applications was a disaster.  They couldn't decide if a PC was
   running a softphone and whether it went on a voice or a data network.
   At that point, people realized that they needed a converged network
   and all moved to one.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the same happen
   here.  Initially, we will see very separated networks.  Then, those
   will be running over the same hardware to take advantage of the cost
   benefits of not having to deploy multiple sets of wires around
   buildings.  Over time, there will be strong needs to directly
   communicate with each other.  We need to be designing the system for
   the long run.  Assume everything will end up on the same network even
   if you initially plan to run it in separate networks."

   It is clearly possible to let sensors in a building communicate
   through the wireless access points and through the same
   infrastructure used for Internet access, if you want to.  Those who
   want separation at the physical layer can do so as well.  What is
   important is to make sure that these different deployment
   philosophies do not force loss of interoperability.






Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   The level of interoperability that IP accomplished fostered
   innovation at the application layer.  Ralph Droms reinforced this
   message by saying: "Bright people will take a phone, build an
   application and connect it, with the appropriate security controls in
   place, to the things in my house in ways we have never thought about
   before.  Otherwise, we are just building another telephone network."

3.1.2.  Domain-Specific Stacks and Profiles

   Imagine a building network scenario where a new light bulb is
   installed that should, out of the box without further configuration,
   interoperate with the already present light switch from a different
   vendor in the room.  For many, this is the desired level of
   interoperability in the area of smart object design.  To accomplish
   this level of interoperability, it is not sufficient to provide
   interoperability only at the network layer.  Even running the same
   transport protocol and application-layer protocol (e.g., HTTP) is
   insufficient since both devices need to understand the semantics of
   the payloads for "Turn the light on" as well.

   Standardizing the entire protocol stack for this specific "light
   switch / light bulb" scenario is possible.  A possible stack would,
   for example, use IPv6 with a specific address configuration mechanism
   (such as stateless address autoconfiguration), a network access
   authentication security mechanism such as Protocol for carrying
   Authentication for Network Access (PANA) [RFC5191], a service
   discovery mechanism (e.g., multicast DNS with DNS-Based Service
   Discovery [DNS-SD]), an application-layer protocol, for example,
   Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [CoAP] (which uses UDP), and
   the syntax and semantic for the light on/off functionality.

   As this list shows, there is already some amount of protocol
   functionality that has to be agreed on by various stakeholders to
   make this scenario work seamlessly.  As we approach more complex
   protocol interactions, the functionality quickly becomes more
   complex: IPv4 and IPv6 on the network layer, various options at the
   transport layer (such as UDP, TCP, the Stream Control Transmission
   Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960], and the Datagram Congestion Control
   Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4340]), and there are plenty of choices at the
   application layer with respect to communication protocols, data
   formats and data models.  Different requirements have led to the
   development of a variety of communication protocols: client-server
   protocols in the style of the original HTTP, publish-subscribe
   protocols (like the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] or
   Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) [RFC6121]), and
   store-and-forward messaging (borrowed from the delay tolerant





Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   networking community).  Along with the different application-layer
   communication protocols come various identity and security
   mechanisms.

   With the smart object constraints, it feels natural to develop these
   stacks since each application domain (e.g., healthcare, smart grids,
   building networking) will have their unique requirements and their
   own community involved in the design process.  How likely are these
   profiles going to be the right match for the future, specifically for
   the new innovations that will come?  How many of these stacks are we
   going to have?  Will the differences in the profiles purely be the
   result of different requirements coming from the individual
   application domains or will these mismatches reflect the spirit,
   understanding, and preferences of the community designing them?  How
   many stacks will multipurpose devices have to implement?

   Standardizing profiles independently for each application is not the
   only option.  Another option is to let many different applications
   utilize a common foundation, i.e., a protocol stack that is
   implemented and utilized by every device.  This, however, requires
   various application domains to be analyzed for their common
   characteristics and to identify requirements that are common across
   all of them.  The level of difficulty for finding an agreement of how
   such a foundation stack should look depends on how many layers it
   covers and how lightweight it has to be.

   From the discussions at the workshop, it was clear that the available
   options are not ideal and further discussions are needed.

3.1.3.  Which Layer?

   The end-to-end principle states that functionality should be put into
   the end points instead of into the networks.  An additional
   recommendation, which is equally important, is to put functionality
   higher up in the protocol stack.  While it is useful to make common
   functionality available as building blocks to higher layers, the wide
   range of requirements by different applications led to a model where
   lower layers provide only very basic functionality and more
   sophisticated features were made available by various applications.
   Still, there has been the desire to put application-layer
   functionality into the lower layers of the networking stack.  A
   common belief is that performance benefits can be gained if
   functionality is placed at the lower layers of the protocol stack.
   This new functionality may be offered in the form of a gateway, which
   bridges different communication technologies, acts on behalf of other
   nodes, and offers more generic functionality (such as name-based
   routing and caching).




Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   Two examples of functionality offered at the network layer and
   discussed during the workshops were location and name-based routing:

   Location:

      The notion of location gives each network node the understanding
      of proximity (e.g., 'I am a light bulb and in the same room as the
      light switch.').  Today, a router may provide information as to
      whether other nodes belong to the same subnet or they may provide
      location information (for example, in the form of GPS-based
      coordinates).  However, providing a sense of the specific
      environment (e.g., a room, building, campus, etc.) is not possible
      without manual configuration.  While it has been a desirable
      feature for many ubiquitous computing applications to know this
      type of information and to use it for richer application-layer
      interactions, widespread deployment has not happened yet.


   Name-Based Routing:

      With the work on recent "clean slate" architecture proposals, such
      as named data networking, flexible naming concepts are being
      researched to allow application developers to express their
      application-layer concepts in a way that they can be used natively
      by the underlying networking stack without translation.  For
      example, Jeff Burke provided the example of his work in a theater
      with a distributed control system of technical equipment (such as
      projectors, dimmers, and light systems).  Application developers
      name their equipment with human-readable identifiers, which may
      change after the end of a rehearsal, and address them using these
      names.  These naming concepts based on variable-length strings
      raise questions regarding scalability.

   The workshop participants were not able to come to an agreement about
   what functionality should be moved from the application layer to the
   network layer.

3.2.  Sleeping Nodes

   One limitation of smart objects is their available energy.  To extend
   battery life, for example, of a watch battery or single AAA battery
   for months, these low-power devices have to sleep 99% to 99.5% of
   their time.  For example, a light sensor may only wake up to check
   whether it is nighttime to turn on light bulbs.  Most parts of the
   system, particularly communication components, are put into a
   sleeping state (e.g., WLAN radio interface) and selected components,





Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   such as sensors, periodically check for relevant events and, if
   necessary, turn on other hardware modules.  Every bit is precious, as
   is every round trip and every millisecond of radio activity.

   Many IETF protocols are implicitly designed to be always on, i.e.,
   the protocol implementation waits for and reacts to incoming
   messages, and may maintain session state (at various layers of the
   stack).  These protocols work well when energy consumption is not a
   concern and when receiving and sending messages happen at a low cost.
   It should be understood that energy is consumed both in transmitting
   messages (and often more importantly) in keeping the receiver awake.
   Allowing devices to sleep most of the time preserves energy but
   creates challenges for protocol designs.

   The inherent issue encountered by a stationary node resuming from
   sleep is that another node may have chosen the same address while the
   node was asleep.  A number of steps have to be taken before sending a
   packet.  A new address may have to be obtained, for example using the
   Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) or stateless address
   autoconfiguration.  Optionally, Detecting Network Attachment (DNA)
   procedures (see [RFC4436] and [RFC6059]) can be used to shorten the
   setup time by noticing that the node is using the same default
   gateway.

   The issue with a mobile node that is sleeping is that the node may
   have been moved to another network (e.g., a sleeping laptop being
   transported to a new environment) where on resumption it may discover
   that its address has become invalid.

   The following design considerations should be taken into account when
   energy efficiency is a concern:

   1.  Rethink the Always-On Assumption

       When designing a protocol that assumes that the nodes are always
       on, alternatives need to be considered.  This could involve
       eliminating functionality (e.g., not implementing DNA or
       duplicate address detection) or considering the use of a sleep
       proxy.  While sleep proxies (e.g., proxZzzy(TM) [proxZzzy])
       enable periodic messages to be sent on behalf of sleeping nodes,
       this approach assumes that energy management constraints do not
       apply to the sleep proxy, which may not always be the case (e.g.,
       if the entire network is deployed in the field without access to
       power).  Yet another option is for devices to explicitly
       communicate sleep cycles so that they can only check for messages
       periodically (be it measured in milliseconds, seconds, or hours).





Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 11]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


       This is the approach taken in IEEE 802.11, which supports
       multiple energy conservation mechanisms designed to enable a
       station to spend a large fraction of the time sleeping.

   2.  Reduce Network Attachment Costs

       As noted above, the procedures for obtaining an address and
       assuring its uniqueness can be costly.  In a network where nodes
       spend a large fraction of the time sleeping, but are not
       necessarily mobile, are all of these procedures really necessary?

       Can we find ways to reduce the number of protocol interactions
       without sacrificing correctness?  The main focus of past
       investigations has been on IPv6 and ND, but other protocols do
       also deserve a deeper investigation, such as DNS and DHCP.

   3.  Avoid Verbose Protocols

       Protocols involving multiple roundtrips and/or lengthy messages
       with verbose encodings (e.g., XML) are not always well-suited for
       constrained environments.  Low-power nodes utilizing verbose
       protocols have to use more energy in sending messages and have to
       stay powered on for a longer period of time as they wait for the
       multi-roundtrip protocol exchanges to complete.

       The best way to address these problems is to ensure that the
       simplest possible protocol exchanges are used when the protocols
       in question are designed.  In some cases, alternative encoding
       formats and compression may also help.

   4.  Think about System-Wide Efficiency

       While energy efficiency is critical for low-power devices running
       on batteries, it is also beneficial for other devices as well,
       including notebook computers, desktop computers, and smartphones.
       However, if the goal is energy efficiency as opposed to battery
       life extension for low-power devices, then it is important to
       consider the total energy consumption of all the elements of the
       system.

       For example, consider energy consumption in a home environment.
       In these scenarios it is important to evaluate the energy usage
       of the entire system.  A light bulb utilizing Internet technology
       described in this document may use less power but there is also
       the device that controls the bulb that may consume a lot of
       energy.  If the goal is to reduce overall energy usage, then it
       is important to consider these two devices (and potentially many
       others) together.



Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 12]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


3.3.  Security

   In the development of smart object applications, as with any other
   protocol application solution, security has to be considered early in
   the design process.  As such, the recommendations currently provided
   to IETF protocol architects, such as RFC 3552 [RFC3552] and RFC 4101
   [RFC4101], apply also to the smart object space.

   While there are additional constraints, as described in Section 2,
   security has to be a mandatory part of the solution.  The hope is
   that this will lead to implementations that provide security
   features, deployments that utilize them, and finally use of better
   security mechanisms.  It is important to point out that the lack of
   direct user interaction will place hard requirements on deployment
   models, configuration mechanisms, and software upgrade /
   crypto-agility mechanisms.

   Since many of the security mechanisms allow for customization,
   particularly with regard to the cryptographic primitives utilized,
   many believe that IETF security solutions are usable without
   modifications in a large part of the smart object domain.  Others
   call for new work on cryptographic primitives that make use of a
   single primitive (such as the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
   [AES]) as a building block for all cryptographic functions.  The
   benefit would be a smaller footprint of the overall solution,
   specifically with respect to hardware limitations (e.g., the hardware
   architecture of certain embedded devices prevents pipelining from
   being used).  In the excitement for new work on optimizations of
   cryptographic primitives, other factors have to be taken into
   consideration that influence successful deployment, such as
   widespread support in libraries, as well as intellectual property
   rights (IPR).  As an example of the latter aspect, the struggle of
   Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC)-based cryptographic algorithms
   [ECC] to find deployment can partially be attributed to its IPR
   situation.  The reuse of libraries providing cryptographic functions
   is clearly an important way to use available memory resources in a
   more efficient way.  To deal with the performance and footprint
   concerns, investigations into offloading certain resource-hungry
   functions to parties that possess more cryptographic power have been
   considered.  For example, the ability to delegate certificate
   validation to servers has been standardized in the IETF before, for
   the support of the Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) in the
   Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) and in Transport
   Layer Security (TLS); see [RFC4806] and [RFC5246], respectively.

   Focusing only on the cryptographic primitives would be shortsighted;
   many would argue that this is the easy part of a smart object
   security solution.  Key management and credential enrollment,



Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 13]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   however, are considered a big challenge by many, particularly when
   usability requirements have to be taken into account.  Another group
   of challenges concern privacy; with smart grids, for example, some
   have voiced concerns regarding the ability of third parties to keep
   track of an individual's energy consumption (and draw associated
   conclusions).  As another example, it is easy to see how a scale that
   is connected to the Internet for uploading weight information to a
   social network could lead to privacy concerns.  While security
   mechanisms that are used to offer protection of the communication
   between different parties also provide a certain degree of privacy
   protection, they are clearly not enough to address all concerns.
   Even with the best communication security and access control
   mechanisms in place, one still needs additional safeguards against
   the concerns mentioned in the examples.

   While better deployment of security protocols on the entire Internet
   would be very desirable, practical considerations regarding usability
   and the incentives of the stakeholders involved have often lead to
   slower adoption.

3.4.  Routing

   A smart object network environment may also employ routers under
   similar constraints as the end devices.  Currently two approaches to
   routing in these low-power and lossy networks are under consideration
   -- namely, mesh-under and route-over.  The so-called "mesh-under"
   approach places routing functions at the link layer, and consequently
   all devices appear as immediate neighbors at the network layer.  With
   the "route-over" approach, routing is done in the IP layer and not at
   all in the link layer.  Each physical hop appears as a single IP hop
   (ignoring devices that just extend the physical range of signaling,
   such as repeaters).  Routing in this context means running a routing
   protocol.  The IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-power and Lossy Networks
   (RPL) [RPL], for example, belongs to the route-over category.

   From an architectural point of view there are several questions that
   arise from where routing is provided, for example:

   o  Protocols often assume that link characteristics are predictable
      when communicating with any device attached to the same link.
      Latency, throughput, and reliability may vary considerably between
      different devices that are multiple link-layer hops away.  What
      timeout should be used?  What happens if a device is unreachable?
      In case of default router selection, two advertised routers may be
      a different number of hops away.  Should a device have visibility
      into the path to make a decision, and what path characteristics
      would be useful to have?




Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 14]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   o  Scoped message delivery to a neighboring IP hop (via link-local
      addressing) allows certain types of IP protocols to communicate
      with their immediate neighbors and to therefore scope their
      recipients.  A link-local multicast message will be received by
      all nodes in the same IP link-local realm unless some special
      optimizations are provided by the link layer.

   o  When path computations are done at the link layer as well as on
      the network layer, then what coordination needs to take place?

   When multiple different link-layer technologies are involved in a
   network design, routing at layer 3 has to be provided in any case.
   [IoT-ARCH] talks about these tradeoffs between route-over and mesh-
   under in detail.  Furthermore, those who decide about the deployment
   have to determine how to connect smart objects to the Internet
   infrastructure, and a number of wired and wireless technologies may
   be suitable for a specific deployment.  Depending on the chosen
   technologies the above-mentioned mesh-under vs. route-over approach
   will have to be decided, and further decisions will have to be made
   about the choice of a specific routing protocol.

   In 2008, the IETF formed the Routing Over Low power and Lossy
   networks (ROLL) working group to specify a routing solution for smart
   object environments.  During its first year of existence, the working
   group studied routing requirements in detail (see [RFC5867],
   [RFC5826], [RFC5673], and [RFC5548]), and it worked on a protocol
   survey comparing a number of existing routing protocols, including Ad
   hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV)-style protocols [RFC3561],
   against the identified requirements.  The protocol survey
   [PROT-SURVEY] was inconclusive and abandoned without giving rise to
   publication of an RFC.

   The ROLL WG concluded that a new routing protocol satisfying the
   documented requirements has to be developed and the work on RPL was
   started as the IETF routing protocol for smart object networks.
   Nevertheless, controversial discussions at the workshop about which
   routing protocols is best in a given environment are still ongoing.
   Thomas Clausen, for example, argued for using an AODV-like routing
   protocol in [Clausen].












Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 15]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


4.  Conclusions and Next Steps

   The workshop allowed the participants to be exposed to interesting
   applications and their requirements (buildings, fountains, theater,
   etc.), to have discussions about radically different architectures
   and their issues (e.g., information centric networking), to look at
   existing technology from a new angle (sleeping nodes, energy
   consumption), to focus on some details of the protocol stack
   (neighbor discovery, security, routing) and to learn about
   implementation experience.

   One goal of the workshop was to identify areas that require further
   investigation.  The list below reflects the thoughts of the workshop
   participants as expressed on the day of the workshop.  Note that the
   suggested items concern potential work by the IETF and the IRTF, and
   the order does not imply a particular preference.

   Security:

      A discussion of security is provided in Section 3.3.  In general,
      security-related protocol exchanges and the required amount of
      computational resource requirements can contribute significantly
      to the overall processing.  Therefore, it remains a challenge to
      accomplish performance improvements without sacrificing the
      overall security level, taking the usability of the entire system
      into consideration.

      Another challenge is how to balance the security and performance
      needs of smart objects with the interoperability requirements of
      hosts on the Internet since different suites of algorithms tend to
      be chosen for these different environments.  This involves trade-
      offs between performance on the smart objects versus end-to-end
      security.  Solutions that mandate a "trusted" middlebox whose only
      role is to terminate security associations tend to be frowned upon
      from the security perspective, especially since end users of
      challenged devices (where those exist) are unlikely to understand
      the security consequences of such middleboxes.

      The discussion concluded with the following recommendations:

      *  Investigate usability in cryptographic protocol design with
         regard to credential management.  As an example, the Bluetooth
         pairing mechanism was mentioned as a simple and yet reasonably
         secure method of introducing devices into a new environment.
         In fact, the IETF working group Credential and Provisioning
         (ENROLL) was established years ago to deal with residential





Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 16]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


         networks but was terminated prematurely due to lack of
         progress.  The email archive still exists and is available
         [ENROLL] and may provide useful historical information.

      *  Standardized authentication and key exchange mechanisms should
         be surveyed for suitability in smart object environments with
         respect to message size, computational performance, number of
         messages, code size, and main memory requirements.  A starting
         point of such an investigation (in the case of IKEv2) was
         provided by Tero Kivinen with [MINIMAL-IKEv2], and a suitable
         venue for discussion could be the recently established Light-
         Weight Implementation Guidance (LWIG) working group [LWIG].

      *  Research has to be done in the area of lightweight
         cryptographic primitives -- namely, block ciphers, stream
         ciphers, and cryptographic hash functions.  It's worthwhile to
         mention the early work with the National Institute of Standards
         and Technology (NIST) new cryptographic hash algorithm 'SHA-3'
         competition [SHA3].  A suitable forum for discussion is the
         IRTF Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG) [CFRG].

      The difficulty and impact of choosing specialized algorithms for
      smart objects should not be underestimated.  Issues that arise
      include the additional specification complexity (e.g., TLS already
      has hundreds of ciphersuites defined, most of which are unused in
      practice), the long latency in terms of roll out (many hosts are
      still using deprecated algorithms 5-10 years after those
      algorithms were deprecated), and the barriers that IPR-encumbered
      schemes present to widespread deployment.  While research on this
      topic within CFRG and the cryptographic research community is a
      very worthwhile goal, any such algorithms will likely have to
      offer very significant benefits before they will be broadly
      adopted. 20% less CPU usage is unlikely to be a winning argument
      no matter what an algorithm inventor believes.

   Energy Design Considerations:

      One part of the workshop was focused on the discussion of energy
      implications for IETF protocol design with proposals being made
      about how to extend protocols to better support nodes that are
      mostly sleeping.  Discussions are encouraged to take place on the
      RECIPE mailing list [RECIPE].  The workshop position paper
      [Wasserman] by Margaret Wasserman provides a good starting point
      for further investigations.







Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 17]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   Information-/Content-Centric Networking:

      Information/Content Centric Networking is about accessing named
      content, and a number of research projects have emerged around
      this theme.  At this point in time, the work is not yet ready for
      standardization in the IETF.  Instead, the formation of an IRTF
      research group has been proposed, and more details are available
      on the IRTF DISCUSS mailing list [irtf-discuss].

   Architectural Guidelines:

      Participants suggested developing an architectural write-up about
      what can be done with the IETF protocols we have today and how
      these different elements may be combined to offer an explanation
      for the broader community.  This would be a task for the IAB.  An
      example of prior work that serves as input is [RFC6272].

   Network Management:

      While this topic did not make it onto the workshop agenda, it was
      considered useful to start a discussion about how to implement
      network management protocols, such as Network Configuration
      Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241], on smart objects.  The following
      position papers may be useful as a starting point for further
      discussions: [Ersue] and [Schoenwaelder].  An IETF draft document
      is also available: [SNMP-OPT].

   Congestion Control:

      When smart objects transmit sensor readings to some server on the
      Internet, these protocol interactions often carry a small amount
      of data and happen infrequently, although regularly.  With the
      work on new application protocols, like CoAP [CoAP], the question
      of whether a congestion control mechanism should be used at the
      underlying transport protocol or by the application protocol
      itself arises.  [CoAP-CC] is a starting point for CoAP, but
      further work is needed.

   Data Models:

      Standardization of application-layer protocols is important but
      does not ensure that, for example, a light switch and a light bulb
      are able to interact with each other.  One area where participants
      saw the need for further work was in the area of data models.
      While prior IETF standardization work on, for example, location
      [GEOPRIV] can be reused, the question was raised where the IETF





Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 18]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


      should focus its standardization efforts since domain expertise in
      each area will be needed.  As a potential example, energy pricing
      was discussed, with an example provided by [ENERGY-PRICING].

   Building Networking:

      Network architectures in residential as well as commercial
      buildings should take the presence of smart objects and dedicated
      subnetworks focusing on smart objects into account.  A new working
      group, Home Networking (HOMENET) [HOMENET], was created after the
      workshop to look at this topic.

   Discovery:

      Additional extensions to developed discovery protocols, such as
      multicast DNS (mDNS), may be needed for the smart object
      environment.  For instance, the HOMENET working group wants to
      extend current discovery protocols to work across multiple
      subnets.  Smart object networks are often organized in separate
      subnets, so these extensions may be useful in that environment as
      well.

   Routing:

      Changing radio conditions and link fluctuation may lead to the
      need for renumbering.  Workshop participants argued that work
      should be started on the multi-link subnetworks to mitigate this
      problem, i.e., to extend the notion of a subnet to be able to span
      multiple links.  With the publication of RFC 4903 [RFC4903], the
      Internet Architecture Board had looked into this topic already and
      provided pros and cons.

      The applicability of specific routing protocols designed for smart
      object networks needs further investigation.  The ROLL working
      group is chartered with the task of constructing an applicability
      document for RPL, for instance.

5.  Security Considerations

   The workshop discussions covered a range of potential engineering
   activities, each with its own security considerations.  As the IETF
   community begins to pursue specific avenues arising out of this
   workshop, addressing relevant security requirements will be crucial.

   As described in this report, part of the agenda was focused on the
   discussion of security; see Section 3.3.





Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 19]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


6.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank all the participants for their position
   papers.  The authors of the accepted position papers were invited to
   the workshop.

   Big thanks to Elwyn Davies for helping us to fix language bugs.  We
   would also like to thank Andrei Robachevsky, Ulrich Herberg, Thomas
   Clausen, Bruce Nordman, Alissa Cooper, Dave Thaler, Bernard Aboba,
   and Henning Schulzrinne for their review comments.

   Additionally, we would like to thank Ericsson and Nokia Siemens
   Networks for their financial support.

7.  Informative References

   [AES]             Wikipedia, "Advanced Encryption Standard",
                     December 2011, <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
                     index.php?title=Advanced_Encryption_Standard&
                     oldid=481153988>.

   [CFRG]            McGrew (Chair), D., "IRTF Crypto Forum Research
                     Group (CFRG)", June 2011, <http://irtf.org/cfrg>.

   [Clausen]         Clausen, T. and U. Herberg, "Some Considerations on
                     Routing in Particular and Lossy Environments", IAB
                     Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet
                     Workshop, Prague, Czech Republic, March 2011,
                     <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/
                     2011/03/Herberg.pdf>.

   [CoAP]            Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., Bormann, C., and B. Frank,
                     "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", Work
                     in Progress, October 2011.

   [CoAP-CC]         Eggert, L., "Congestion Control for the Constrained
                     Application Protocol (CoAP)", Work in Progress,
                     January 2011.

   [DNS-SD]          Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
                     Discovery", Work in Progress, December 2011.

   [Dolin]           Dolin, B., "Application Communications Requirements
                     for 'The Internet of Things'", IAB Interconnecting
                     Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop, Prague,
                     Czech Republic, March 2011, <http://www.iab.org/
                     wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/Dolin.pdf>.




Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 20]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   [ECC]             Wikipedia, "Elliptic Curve Cryptography",
                     December 2011, <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
                     index.php?title=Elliptic_curve_cryptography&
                     oldid=480053167>.

   [ENERGY-PRICING]  Jennings, C. and B. Nordman, "Communication of
                     Energy Price Information", Work in Progress,
                     July 2011.

   [ENROLL]          "The ietf-enroll Archives",
                     <http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/ietf-enroll/>.

   [Ersue]           Ersue, M. and J. Korhonen, "Position Paper on
                     'Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet'",
                     IAB Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet
                     Workshop, Prague, Czech Republic, February 2011,
                     <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/
                     Ersue.pdf>.

   [GEOPRIV]         IETF, "Geographic Location/Privacy (geopriv)
                     Working Group",
                     <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/>.

   [HOMENET]         "Home Networking (homenet) Working Group",
                     <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/homenet>.

   [IoT-ARCH]        Hui, J. and J. Vasseur, "Routing Architecture in
                     Low-Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs)", Work
                     in Progress, March 2011.

   [LWIG]            IETF, "Light-Weight Implementation Guidance (lwig)
                     Working Group", June 2011,
                     <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lwig/charter/>.

   [MINIMAL-IKEv2]   Kivinen, T., "Minimal IKEv2", Work in Progress,
                     February 2011.

   [PROT-SURVEY]     Tavakoli, A., Dawson-Haggerty, S., and P. Levis,
                     "Overview of Existing Routing Protocols for Low
                     Power and Lossy Networks", Work in Progress,
                     April 2009.

   [RECIPE]          "Reducing Energy Consumption with Internet
                     Protocols Exploration (RECIPE) Mailing List",
                     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recipe>.

   [RFC0768]         Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6,
                     RFC 768, August 1980.



Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 21]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   [RFC0791]         Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
                     September 1981.

   [RFC0793]         Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
                     RFC 793, September 1981.

   [RFC2460]         Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol,
                     Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460,
                     December 1998.

   [RFC2616]         Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
                     Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee,
                     "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1",
                     RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [RFC3261]         Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G.,
                     Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley,
                     M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation
                     Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

   [RFC3552]         Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing
                     RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72,
                     RFC 3552, July 2003.

   [RFC3561]         Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., and S. Das, "Ad hoc
                     On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing",
                     RFC 3561, July 2003.

   [RFC4101]         Rescorla, E. and IAB, "Writing Protocol Models",
                     RFC 4101, June 2005.

   [RFC4340]         Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
                     Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
                     March 2006.

   [RFC4436]         Aboba, B., Carlson, J., and S. Cheshire, "Detecting
                     Network Attachment in IPv4 (DNAv4)", RFC 4436,
                     March 2006.

   [RFC4806]         Myers, M. and H. Tschofenig, "Online Certificate
                     Status Protocol (OCSP) Extensions to IKEv2",
                     RFC 4806, February 2007.

   [RFC4903]         Thaler, D., "Multi-Link Subnet Issues", RFC 4903,
                     June 2007.

   [RFC4960]         Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission
                     Protocol", RFC 4960, September 2007.



Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 22]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   [RFC5191]         Forsberg, D., Ohba, Y., Patil, B., Tschofenig, H.,
                     and A. Yegin, "Protocol for Carrying Authentication
                     for Network Access (PANA)", RFC 5191, May 2008.

   [RFC5246]         Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer
                     Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
                     August 2008.

   [RFC5548]         Dohler, M., Watteyne, T., Winter, T., and D.
                     Barthel, "Routing Requirements for Urban Low-Power
                     and Lossy Networks", RFC 5548, May 2009.

   [RFC5673]         Pister, K., Thubert, P., Dwars, S., and T. Phinney,
                     "Industrial Routing Requirements in Low-Power and
                     Lossy Networks", RFC 5673, October 2009.

   [RFC5826]         Brandt, A., Buron, J., and G. Porcu, "Home
                     Automation Routing Requirements in Low-Power and
                     Lossy Networks", RFC 5826, April 2010.

   [RFC5867]         Martocci, J., De Mil, P., Riou, N., and W.
                     Vermeylen, "Building Automation Routing
                     Requirements in Low-Power and Lossy Networks",
                     RFC 5867, June 2010.

   [RFC6059]         Krishnan, S. and G. Daley, "Simple Procedures for
                     Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6", RFC 6059,
                     November 2010.

   [RFC6121]         Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
                     Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence",
                     RFC 6121, March 2011.

   [RFC6241]         Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
                     Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol
                     (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, June 2011.

   [RFC6272]         Baker, F. and D. Meyer, "Internet Protocols for the
                     Smart Grid", RFC 6272, June 2011.

   [RPL]             Brandt, A., Vasseur, J., Hui, J., Pister, K.,
                     Thubert, P., Levis, P., Struik, R., Kelsey, R.,
                     Clausen, T., and T. Winter, "RPL: IPv6 Routing
                     Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", Work
                     in Progress, March 2011.






Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 23]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   [SHA3]            NIST, "Cryptographic Hash Algorithm Competition",
                     December 2010, <http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/
                     hash/sha-3/index.html>.

   [SNMP-OPT]        Schoenwaelder, J., Mukhtar, H., Joo, S., and K.
                     Kim, "SNMP Optimizations for Constrained Devices",
                     Work in Progress, October 2010.

   [Schoenwaelder]   Schoenwaelder, J., Tsou, T., and B. Sarikaya,
                     "Protocol Profiles for Constrained Devices", IAB
                     Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet
                     Workshop, Prague, Czech Republic, February 2011,
                     <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/
                     Schoenwaelder.pdf>.

   [SmartGrid]       Wikipedia, "Smart Grid", December 2011,
                     <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
                     index.php?title=Smart_grid&oldid=479750548>.

   [Tussle]          Clark, D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K., and R.
                     Braden, "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's
                     Internet", In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, 2002,
                     <http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2002/
                     papers/tussle.html>.

   [Wasserman]       Wasserman, M., "It's Not Easy Being 'Green'", IAB
                     Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet
                     Workshop, Prague, Czech Republic, March 2011,
                     <http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/
                     Wasserman.pdf>.

   [irtf-discuss]    Ohlman, B., "Draft ICN RG Charter", message to IRTF
                     DISCUSS Mailing List, May 2011,
                     <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irtf-discuss/
                     current/msg00041.html>.

   [proxZzzy]        ECMA, "proxZzzy(TM) for sleeping hosts",
                     Standard ECMA-393, February 2010,
                     <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/
                     standards/Ecma-393.htm>.











Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 24]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


Appendix A.  Program Committee

   The following persons are responsible for the organization of the
   associated workshop and are responsible also for this event: Jari
   Arkko, Hannes Tschofenig, Bernard Aboba, Carsten Bormann, David
   Culler, Lars Eggert, JP. Vasseur, Stewart Bryant, Adrian Farrel,
   Ralph Droms, Geoffrey Mulligan, Alexey Melnikov, Peter Saint-Andre,
   Marcelo Bagnulo, Zach Shelby, Isidro Ballesteros Laso, Fred Baker,
   Cullen Jennings, Manfred Hauswirth, and Lukas Kencl.

Appendix B.  Workshop Materials

   Main page:
   http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/smartobjects/

   Position papers:
   http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/smartobjects/papers/

   Slides:
   http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/smartobjects/agenda/

   Minutes:
   http://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/smartobjects/
   smartobjectworkshopmeetingminutes/

Appendix C.  Accepted Position Papers

   1.   Deployment Experience with Low Power Lossy Wireless Sensor
        Networks" by C. Adjih, E. Baccelli, P. Jacquet, P. Minet, M.
        Philipp, and G. Wittenburg

   2.   CoAP improvements to meet embedded device hardware constraints"
        by Davide Barbieri

   3.   "Unified Device Networking Protocols for Smart Objects" by
        Daniel Barisic and Anton Pfefferseder

   4.   "Simplified neighbour cache implementation in RPL/6LoWPAN" by
        Dominique Barthel

   5.   "Home Control in a consumer's perspective" by Anders Brandt

   6.   "Authoring Place-based Experiences with an Internet of Things:
        Tussles of Expressive, Operational, and Participatory Goals" by
        Jeff Burke






Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 25]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   7.   "A Dynamic Distributed Federated Approach for the Internet of
        Things" by Diego Casado Mansilla, Juan Ramon Velasco Perez, and
        Mario Lopez-Ramos

   8.   "Quickly interoperable Internet of Things using simple
        transparent gateways" by Angelo P. Castellani, Salvatore Loreto,
        Nicola Bui, and Michele Zorzi

   9.   "Position Paper of the Brno University of Technology Department
        of Telecommunications" by Vladimir Cervenka, Lubomir Mraz, Milan
        Simek, and Karel Pavlata

   10.  "Secure Access to IOT Network: An Application-based Group Key
        Approach" by Samita Chakrabarti and Wassim Haddad

   11.  "Domain-Insulated Autonomous Network Architecture (DIANA)" by W.
        Chun

   12.  "Yet Another Definition on Name, Address, ID, and Locator
        (YANAIL)" by W. Chun

   13.  "The Challenge of Mobility in Low Power Networks" by E. Davies

   14.  "If the routing protocol is so smart, why should neighbour
        discovery be so dumb?" by Nicolas Dejean

   15.  "Making Smart Objects IPv6 Ready: Where are we?" by M. Durvy and
        M. Valente

   16.  "Position Paper on 'Interconnecting Smart Objects with the
        Internet'" by Mehmet Ersue and Jouni Korhonen

   17.  "The Real-time Enterprise: IoT-enabled Business Processes" by
        Stephan Haller and Carsten Magerkurth

   18.  "Making Internet-Connected Objects readily useful" by Manfred
        Hauswirth, Dennis Pfisterer, and Stefan Decker

   19.  "Some Considerations on Routing in Particular and Lossy
        Environments" by Thomas Clausen and Ulrich Herberg

   20.  "A Security Protocol Adaptation Layer for the IP-based Internet
        of Things" by Rene Hummen, Tobias Heer, and Klaus Wehrle

   21.  "Simplified SIP Approach for the Smart Object" by Ryota
        Ishibashi, Takumi Ohba, Arata Koike, and Akira Kurokawa





Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 26]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   22.  "Mobility support for the small and smart Future Internet
        devices" by Antonio J. Jara and Antonio F. G. Skarmeta

   23.  "The Need for Efficient Reliable Multicast in Smart Grid
        Networks" by J. Jetcheva, D. Popa, M.G. Stuber, and H. Van Wyk

   24.  "Lightweight Cryptography for the Internet of Things" by
        Masanobu Katagi and Shiho Moriai

   25.  "Thoughts on Reliability in the Internet of Things" by James
        Kempf, Jari Arkko, Neda Beheshti, and Kiran Yedavalli

   26.  "IKEv2 and Smart Objects" by Tero Kivinen

   27.  "Position Paper on Thing Name Service (TNS) for the Internet of
        Things (IoT)" by Ning Kong and Shuo Shen

   28.  "Connecting Smart Objects to Wireless WANs" by Suresh Krishnan

   29.  "Towards an Information-Centric Internet with more Things" by D.
        Kutscher and S. Farrell

   30.  "Application of 6LoWPAN for the Real-Time Positioning of
        Manufacturing Assets" by Jaacan Martinez and Jose L. M. Lastra

   31.  "Lighting interface to wireless network" by Jaroslav Meduna

   32.  "Social-driven Internet of Connected Objects" by Paulo Mendes

   33.  "Protocols should go forward that are required by non IP based
        protocols" by Tsuyoshi Momose

   34.  "Web services for Wireless Sensor and Actuator Networks" by
        Guido Moritz

   35.  "Connecting BT-LE sensors to the Internet using Ipv6" by Markus
        Isomaki, Kanji Kerai, Jari Mutikainen, Johanna Nieminen,
        Basavaraj Patil, Teemu Savolainen, and Zach Shelby

   36.  "Building Networks" by Bruce Nordman

   37.  "Issues and Challenges in Provisioning Keys to Smart Objects" by
        Yoshihiro Ohba and Subir Das

   38.  "Challenges and Solutions of Secure Smart Environments" by Eila
        Ovaska and Antti Evesti





Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 27]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   39.  "Research Experiences about Internetworking Mechanisms to
        Integrate Embedded Wireless Networks into Traditional Networks"
        by Jose F. Martinez, Ivan Corredor, and Miguel S. Familiar

   40.  "Scalable Video Coding in Networked Environment" by Naeem
        Ramzan, Tomas Piatrik, and Ebroul Izquierdo

   41.  "Challenges in Opportunistic Networking" by Mikko Pitkaenen and
        Teemu Kaerkkaeinen

   42.  "Position Statement" by Neeli R. Prasad and Sateesh Addepalli

   43.  "A Gateway Architecture for Interconnecting Smart Objects to the
        Internet" by Akbar Rahman, Dorothy Gellert, Dale Seed

   44.  "Routing Challenges and Directions for Smart Objects in Future
        Internet of Things" by T. A. Ramrekha, E. Panaousis, and C.
        Politis

   45.  "6LoWPAN Extension for IPsec" by Shahid Raza, Thiemo Voigt, and
        Utz Roedig

   46.  "Connected Vehicle as Smart Object(s)" by Ryuji Wakikawa

   47.  "Problem and possible approach of development and operation of
        Smart Objects" by Shoichi Sakane

   48.  "Connecting Passive RFID Tags to the Internet of Things" by
        Sandra Dominikus and Joern-Marc Schmidt

   49.  "Protocol Profiles for Constrained Devices" by Juergen
        Schoenwaelde, Tina Tsou, and Behcet Sarikaya

   50.  "Multihoming for Sensor Networks" by J. Soininen

   51.  "Internet Objects for Building Control" by Peter van der Stok
        and Nicolas Riou

   52.  "Optimal information placement for Smart Objects" by Shigeya
        Suzuki

   53.  "Multi-National Initiative for Cloud Computing in Health Care
        (MUNICH)" by Christoph Thuemmler

   54.  "The time of the hourglass has elapsed" by Laurent Toutain,
        Nicolas Montavont, and Dominique Barthel





Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 28]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   55.  "Sensor and Actuator Resource Architecture" by Vlasios Tsiatsis,
        Jan Hoeller, and Richard Gold

   56.  "IT'S NOT EASY BEING 'GREEN'" by Margaret Wasserman

   57.  "Trustworthy Wireless Industrial Sensor Networks" by Markus
        Wehner, Thomas Bartzsch, Dirk Burggraf, Sven Zeisberg, Alexis
        Olivereau, and Oualha Nouha

   58.  "Interconnecting smart objects through an overlay networking
        architecture" by Anastasios Zafeiropoulos, Athanassios
        Liakopoulos and Panagiotis Gouvas

   59.  "Building trust among Virtual Interconnecting Smart Objects in
        the Future Internet" by Theodore Zahariadic, Helen C. Leligou,
        Panagiotis Trakadas, and Mischa Dohler

   60.  "Experience and Challenges of Integrating Smart Devices with the
        Mobile Internet" by Zhen Cao and Hui Deng

   61.  "The 'mesh-under' versus 'route over' debate in IP Smart Objects
        Networks" by JP.  Vasseur and Jonathan Hui

   62.  "Identification and Authentication of IoT Devices" by Alper
        Yegin

   63.  "Security Challenges For the Internet of Things" by Tim Polk and
        Sean Turner

   64.  "Application Communications Requirements for 'The Internet of
        Things'" by Bob Dolin

   65.  "Interoperability Concerns in the Internet of Things" by Jari
        Arkko

   66.  "Privacy in Ubiquitous Computing" by Ivan Gudymenko and Katrin
        Borcea-Pfitzmann

   67.  "The 10 Laws of Smart Object Security Design" by Hannes
        Tschofenig and Bernard Aboba

   68.  "Position Paper on 'In-Network Object Cloud' Architecture and
        Design Goals" by Alex Galis and Stuart Clayman

   69.  "Temptations and Difficulties of Protocols for Smart Objects and
        the Internet" by Alexandru Petrescu





Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 29]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


   70.  "The Internet of Things - Challenge for a New Architecture from
        Problems" by Gyu Myoung Lee and Noel Crespi

   71.  "Garrulity and Fluff" by Carsten Bormann and Klaus Hartke

Appendix D.  Workshop Participants

   We would like to than the following workshop participants for
   attending the workshop:

      Adrian Farrel
      Akbar Rahman
      Alissa Cooper
      Alper Yegin
      Anastasios Zafeiropoulos
      Anders Brandt
      Angelo P. Castellani
      Antonio F. G. Skarmeta
      Antonio Jara
      Arvind Ramrekha
      Behcet Sarikaya
      Bernard Aboba
      Bruce Nordman
      Carsten Bormann
      Cullen Jennings
      Daniel Barisic
      Dave Thaler
      Davide Barbieri
      Diego Casado Mansilla
      Dirk Kutscher
      Dominique Barthel
      Dorothy Gellert
      Elwyn Davis
      Emmanuel Baccelli
      Fred Baker
      Guido Moritz
      Gyu Myoung Lee
      Hannes Tschofenig
      Hui Deng
      Ivan Gudymenko
      Jaacan Martinez
      Jari Arkko
      Jaroslav Meduna
      Jeff Burke
      Johanna Nieminen
      Jonathan Hui
      Jonne Soininen
      Jouni Korhonen



Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 30]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


      JP. Vasseur
      Karel Pavlata
      Klaus Hartke
      Lars Eggert
      Laura Gheorghe
      Laurent Toutain
      Lukas Kencl
      Marcelo Bagnulo
      Marco Valente
      Margaret Wasserman
      Markus Isomaki
      Markus Wehner
      Masanobu Katagi
      Mathilde Durvy
      Mehmet Ersue
      Mikko Pitkaenen
      Milan Simek
      Neeli R. Prasad
      Nicolas Dejean
      Ning Kong
      Pascal Thubert
      Paulo Mendes
      Pete Resnick
      Peter van der Stok
      Ralph Droms
      Rene Hummen
      Ross Callon
      Ruediger Martin
      Russ Housley
      Ryota Ishibashi
      Ryuji Wakikawa
      Samita Chakrabarti
      Sandra Dominikus
      Sean Shen
      Sean Turner
      Shahid Raza
      Shoichi Sakane
      Spencer Dawkins
      Stephan Haller
      Stephen Farrell
      Stewart Bryant
      Subir Das
      Suresh Krishnan
      Tea Sang Choi
      Tero Kivinen
      Theodore Zahariadis
      Thomas Clausen
      Tim Polk



Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 31]

RFC 6574              Smart Object Workshop Report            April 2012


      Tina Tsou
      Tsuyoshi Momose
      Vladimir Cervenka
      Wassim Haddad
      Woojik Chun
      Zach Shelby

Appendix E.  IAB Members at the Time of Approval

   Bernard Aboba
   Ross Callon
   Alissa Cooper
   Spencer Dawkins
   Joel Halpern
   Russ Housley
   David Kessens
   Olaf Kolkman
   Danny McPherson
   Jon Peterson
   Andrei Robachevsky
   Dave Thaler
   Hannes Tschofenig

Authors' Addresses

   Hannes Tschofenig
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   Espoo  02600
   Finland

   Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
   EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
   URI:   http://www.tschofenig.priv.at


   Jari Arkko
   Ericsson
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   EMail: jari.arkko@piuha.net


   Internet Architecture Board

   EMail: iab@iab.org




Tschofenig & Arkko            Informational                    [Page 32]

