Re: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft

[John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>]

Colin

Thanks very much for this.  I for one, and I guess some others on the TC, are getting out of our comfort zone on this topic, so we are going to reply very heavily on a few of you who really understand the issues. 

My immediate thought on the issues you have raised is are we getting too complicated on this?  Bearing in mind that we are trying to give advice to non-techie policy makers, senior managers etc,   we do need to keep our messages at a fairly high-level certainly at this stage when the IoT is a developing thing.  But at the same time make it a meaningful and useful document rather than just repeat what is already available on the 'Net, so where's our added-value?

Clearly we can discuss on tomorrow's call but the immediate questions for me are:

- do we need to re-define e-devices or come up with some other term to cover the things we're talking about?

- how much of what you have articulate is in the future, and hence for a future version, and how much is immediate and for this version?

- how are the few of you that understand this going to share the burden of drafting the required text?

John

From: Colin Wallis <Colin.Wallis@dia.govt.nz>
To: 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 23 July 2014, 2:38
Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft

Yes, I too, support the approach, but I do have some concerns.

I don’t yet have any specific text at this stage but wanted to air them in advance of the meeting.

 

We seem to have got fixated on ‘devices’ and e-devices’ and to a lesser extent on sensors, as the things that need high level/governance level attention on.

 

The problem space is much broader than these (important as they are, since you’ve got sensors in devices and sensors in other objects that aren’t devices).  But not all objects need nor have sensors. An object (as a simple data source)may just need to be internet addressable via IPV4/6 so that it can take some action or other.

 

The big issues so far, on IoT are interoperability, identity (and from that ownership, authentication, access control), and from that privacy (correctly called out in the draft) and security (not mentioned) and pan jurisdiction legal vires (interop/recognition on a higher level (implied in the draft). Much like the issues that pervade anything on the internet today.

 

There are a range of protocols being applied or purpose built for IoT, and one need go no further than OASIS to see potential protocol wars looming. TGF deployers will need to be mindful of its standards strategy and governance, and the mapping/transformation requirements that will fall out of this.

 

There are a range of approaches to identifying a ‘thing’ .. again a protocol and process issue, which will affect the ‘trust’ in the ‘thing’ .. that is has not been compromised when other ‘things’ communicate with it. … ‘thing spoofing’…

 

Then there is the whole issue of ownership and control. Simple use case of ye olde light switch and light bulb (hate it… hate it.. but bear with me..) .  I bought the lightswitch and the lightbulb and they are in my utility facility. But the manufacturer holds the identity establishment of these items, even if I or the sensor provider or comms provider enrolled these items to the service. Who has access control? Under what circumstances? Who needs to know what has been accessed, what was changed? These federated control channel networks need all the same GRC as any other asset in a system.

   

The security and privacy implications are significant, and plays into the governance of risk and liability for TGF deployers.

 

There is the while issue of power consumption. Some sensors, devices, objects can only operate on very low power. From a governance perspective, you need to think about the range of standards for power of object, how they interoperate with existing systems of a different power output etc.

 

There is the whole issue of automation...say, a sensor sending info to a website that creates a ‘heat map’ of some particular event/crisis whatever. The whole end to end ‘orchestrated automation’ of the process needs to be protected and governed.

 

And that leads to the issue of scale. The scale of IoT is vastly different (larger) than that of people and their devices. You can’t operate and govern that scale in the same way.  That is what the SCADA (look it up if you don’t know) approach attempts to tackle.

I know I am risking getting my early comment.. ‘ it’s not all about technology’ ..thrown back in face.

 

But the point I am making is that in order to apply the higher level strategy, policy and standards governance a la GP1 and B3 (and I think others are also applicable) onto the IoT, you need to know what it is you need to govern.

 

Anyway, FWIW..

 

Cheers

Colin   

 

From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras
Sent: Saturday, 19 July 2014 2:52 a.m.
To: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: Re: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft

 

 Chris

 

Thanks for this, it looks like a very good pattern to follow if you'll excuse the pun!  It certainly meets two of the main goals I had in mind for the CN, ie allowing us to write some very discursive text on the subject matter, and providing good material to test out when we get to the Public Review.

 

I'll add this to next week's agenda and hope to see a lot of hands go up when I ask for volunteers to help write the other patterns...-)

 

John

 

From: Chris Parker <chris.parker@cstransform.com>
To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>; 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, 18 July 2014, 14:42
Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft

 

John

 

As promised, I’ve now had a go at the first couple of most IoT-relevant patterns, in the attached redraft to Section 3 of your draft Committee Note.

 

As you’ll see, I’m suggesting a common structure, where for each relevant pattern we look in turn at:

 

• Why this Core Pattern is particularly relevant to the IoT
• Recommendations on how the Core Pattern should be implemented to maximise benefits from the IoT

Perhaps we could discuss on the call next week.  If this approach seems helpful, we could divide up the relevant patterns between a few of us.  Once we’ve gone through this process, it should be clearer what if any new recommendations or potential changes in a TGF v3 we might want.

 

Have a great weekend,

 

Chris Parker

Managing Partner

CS Transform Limited

www.cstransform.com

T: +44 7951 754060

F: +44 207 681 3908

 

Citizen Service Transformation

 

 

From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras
Sent: 16 July 2014 10:03
To: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: Re: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft

 

 Nig

 

Thanks, I've captured these comments into the next draft. 

 

You'll have seen Chris' thoughts about writing Section 3 and the patterns.  As soon as he's provided a couple of draft patterns perhaps you can pick up some of the others to re-write, particularly those you've listed below.

 

John

 

From: Greenaway Nigel <Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com>
To: 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2014, 14:38
Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft

 

Hi All,

                Firstly apologies for taking so long to respond on this.

 

I think the text in sections 2 & 4 is OK at this stage except for a potentially confusing last paragraph in section 2. I believe it would be better expressed as “Rather than any technical aspects, governments need to focus more on the functional requirements of the eDevice-powered services they exploit and the range of suppliers present within the ecosystems that they participate in to serve citizens and businesses.”

 

I think we need to consider all the patterns listed in section 3 (BTW [B7] is listed twice) and suggest that we should also  consider [B3] Transformational Operating Model (where not only do we need to think across government domains but external ones -potentially including other governments for services such a weather warnings that could span jurisdictions) and [S2] Brand-Led Service delivery (where I think there are considerations about joint-branding and ‘customer’ communications and the public trust in the organisations with whom government may wish to jointly promote services).

 

 

Regards

 

Nig

 

Nig Greenaway

Fujitsu Fellow

 

FUJITSU

Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN

Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7444 5637

Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147

E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com
Web: http://uk.fujitsu.com

 

 

 

From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras
Sent: 09 July 2014 11:50
To: 'TGF TC List'
Subject: [tgf] TGF/IoT CN Working Draft

 

Once again thanks for the very quick responses and for the support for my proposed way forward.  Attached is my initial draft of the Committee Note for your scrutiny. 

 

I don't profess for this to be in anyway near complete.  All I have done is drawn together bits of text that we have produced on this subject over the last couple of months, mainly from the draft new pattern that we had discussed.  It needs a very thorough read and further contributions please. 

 

Chris - can you take a particular look at Section 3 please as this is the message that you have been promoting but we need to be clear how the patterns should be applied.

 

Nig - can you look at Sections 2 and 4 to ensure they all make sense as much of this is your text.

 

Geoff - can you consider whether your architecture diagram or a version of it is appropriate for inclusion in Section 2.

 

As we've said what were looking for is something that we can put out for Public Review to test the water so if there are issues we're not sure about then let's include them and see what reaction we get.

 

 

John

 

From: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>
To: 'TGF TC List' <tgf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014, 14:35
Subject: Re: [tgf] Re: TGF and the Internet of Things

 

Thanks to everyone for their views and suggestions so far.  Taking all these on board and some further thinking on my part I think the answer to our problem is as follows.

 

The title of the CN should be "TGF: Impact of IoT" and the objective of the document is to present an impact assessment of the IoT on TGF programs and public services.  The assessment will result in a number of recommendations, which may include the need for new TGF patterns or changes to existing ones which would be incorporated in TGF v3.0, but with the main one being the need for governance of the IoT and how a lot of the TGF patterns support that need. 

 

The outline structure I circulated earlier, see attached, I think still holds good but within that structure the tenor of the text is that of an impact assessment.  This approach allows for a lot of discussion about the merits of the IoT, its newness, its potential for the future and the problems it may/will present to TGF managers.   

 

If we could come to an early consensus on this as the way forward I will get the necessary document template and sketch an outline for discussion on our next TC call. 

 

So AYEs/NOs asap please.

 

John  

Unless otherwise stated, this email has been sent from Fujitsu Services Limited, from Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, or from Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, together "Fujitsu".

This email is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.

Fujitsu Services Limited, registered in England No 96056, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW.

Fujitsu (FTS) Limited, registered in England No 03808613, registered office 22 Baker Street, London W1U 3BW.

PFU Imaging Solutions Europe Limited, registered in England No 1578652, registered office Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE.

Fujitsu Telecommunications Europe Limited, registered in England No 2548187, registered office Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham, B37 7YU.