Internet Architecture Board (iab) Architectural Considerations in Smart Object Networking

The term "Internet of Things" (IoT) denotes a trend where a large number of embedded devices employ communication services offered by Internet protocols. Many of these devices, often called "smart objects", are not directly operated by humans but exist as components in buildings or vehicles, or are spread out in the environment. Following the theme "Everything that can be connected will be connected", engineers and researchers designing smart object networks need to decide how to achieve this in practice. 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. It represents the consensus of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). 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 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.

[1]  Internet Architecture Board,et al.  Writing Protocol Models , 2005, RFC.

[2]  Brian E. Carpenter,et al.  Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions , 2012, RFC.

[3]  Randy H. Katz,et al.  IP Options are not an option , 2005 .

[4]  Carsten Bormann,et al.  Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks , 2014, RFC.

[5]  Wesley George,et al.  IPv6 Support Required for All IP-Capable Nodes , 2012, RFC.

[6]  Fred Baker,et al.  Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid , 2011, RFC.

[7]  Brian E. Carpenter,et al.  Middleboxes: Taxonomy and Issues , 2002, RFC.

[8]  Internet Architecture Board,et al.  The Rise of the Middle and the Future of End-to-End: Reflections on the Evolution of the Internet Architecture , 2004, RFC.

[9]  Aiko Pras,et al.  On the Difference between Information Models and Data Models , 2003, RFC.

[10]  Ralph Johnson,et al.  design patterns elements of reusable object oriented software , 2019 .

[11]  Brian E. Carpenter,et al.  Architectural Principles of the Internet , 1996, RFC.

[12]  David Clark,et al.  Tussle in cyberspace: defining tomorrow's internet , 2002, SIGCOMM 2002.

[13]  Dear Mr Sotiropoulos.  ARTICLE 29 Data Protection Working Party , 2013 .

[14]  Eric Rescorla,et al.  Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2 , 2012, RFC.

[15]  Marit Hansen,et al.  Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols , 2022 .

[16]  Sally Floyd,et al.  IAB Architectural and Policy Considerations for Open Pluggable Edge Services , 2002, RFC.

[17]  Jari Arkko,et al.  Report from the Smart Object Workshop , 2012, RFC.

[18]  Larry L. Peterson,et al.  TCP Extensions Considered Harmful , 1991, RFC.

[19]  Markku Kojo,et al.  An experimental study of home gateway characteristics , 2010, IMC '10.

[20]  Mark Handley,et al.  Is it still possible to extend TCP? , 2011, IMC '11.

[21]  Dick Hardt,et al.  The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework , 2012, RFC.

[22]  François-Xavier Standaert,et al.  A Tutorial on Physical Security and Side-Channel Attacks , 2004, FOSAD.

[23]  Christian Huitema,et al.  Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A Threat Model and Problem Statement , 2015, RFC.

[24]  Bernard Aboba,et al.  Reflections on Internet Transparency , 2007, RFC.

[25]  Carsten Bormann,et al.  The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) , 2014, RFC.

[26]  David Thaler,et al.  What Makes for a Successful Protocol? , 2008, RFC.

[27]  Hannes Tschofenig,et al.  Report from the Smart Object Security Workshop , 2014, RFC.

[28]  Magnus Westerlund,et al.  Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations , 2016 .