[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: TGF Patterns for the IoT Committee Note
Nig, I’m pleased that you answered Chris, as many of my initial questions were very similar! I too believe that the TGF was scoped and designed in a way that could
(easily) take account of IoT and welcome your clarifications. I have one remaining issue – regarding how IoT devices are the same or differ from other IT infrastructure and assets. You state for example, “All systems, regardless of platform, need to be configured, secured, monitored, updated, and patched. The IoT will only contribute to the complexity of IT
systems management, security and asset management as Internet-connected computing devices and application delivery models proliferate” Many devices that are becoming part of IoT are commoditized and it is difficult to see how they can be configured, secured, etc. For example, my new television
has an onboard embedded webserver, whose password I cannot control or configure; and which I can only “secure” by not allowing it to connect to the Internet. That defeats the object of it being a “smart TV” but stops it from becoming a spamming botnet, which
although not part of its intended design, is nonetheless well within its capability. I think we need to say something about how one can govern an IT landscape in which one may have to accept components over which one has little or no control.
I fear that this is going to be increasingly the case and as IoT spawns more and more such devices, and as service providers try to respond defensively to this increased complexity we may start to hear more clamour for proprietary and closed systems as a defensive
strategy based on “security through obscurity”. Just a thought. Cheers, Peter From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Greenaway Nigel Hi Chris, Thanks for your comments. No I don’t think that there are gaps in the TGF – indeed I think it has stood up to the test very well. What I produced are working notes without
too much consideration of the wording (apologies for that). The aspects that I have mentioned under ‘IoT Delta’ are those where I feel this CN needs to say something – primarily by building on what the TGF already says but applying it a little more closely
and overtly to the IoT aspects. In a sense this could be seen as being as profile of the TGF. 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 From: Chris Parker [mailto:chris.parker@cstransform.com]
Thanks for doing this. There’s lots of great stuff here, and in general I think all the issues you’ve identified are important and, other than
some detail we can address when we get to detailed drafting, I think the recommendations are on the right lines. What concerns me though is the sense that all of these issues and recommendations are missing from the existing TGF; that this content is about
‘filling gaps’ in some sense. Is that what you had in mind by “IoT Delta”? Because that’s not the way I see it. While the TGF doesn’t explicitly discuss IoT in much detail, we very much had it in mind when drafting many
of the patterns. And I think we should take the general stance that the TGF as it stands is a valuable tool for organisations wishing to manage effectively in an IoT environment (while also talking the opportunity of this Committee Note to do further due
diligence and highlight any issues that are not fully addressed in TGF). That’s why my suggested format for this committee note started by looking at relevant patterns and explaining why they are already relevant to
the IoT. In many places, the “IoT delta” sections of your note identify issues which I think are already identified explicitly in the relevant TGF pattern, albeit in slightly different wording, and similarly many of the recommendations are already TGF recommendations.
So I found it difficult to disentangle which elements of your note were new. Happy to give examples of this if that would be helpful. Or is this also how you see things, and simply planned to bring in the “how TGF already
addresses” this element back in during the next phase? Regards, Chris Parker Managing Partner CS Transform Limited 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 Greenaway Nigel Hi All, As discussed on our call on 24/7, here is a note containing bullet points for each of the patterns identified in section 3.
As stated in the note
I think the next actions are for everyone to look at the issues raised under ‘IoT Delta’ headings and
1) agree that they are indeed issues 2) agree that they are in the right place 3) Identify any further issues that we should address in the CN. Then, we need to look at the recommendations, comment upon them and identify any further ones. I did originally offer to attempt to draft the full patterns for review by our meeting on 21st
August. I don’t think that will be possible given the need for the TC to comment on this note and my other commitments. Thus, I suggest that we aim to have this note (including a full set of recommendations) agreed by the end of that meeting. I hope that is
acceptable. In either case, I would appreciate comments as requested above ASAP and, wherever possible, I will incorporate them into a further issue of this
note. 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
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]