wiki:Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform

European Multi Stakeholder Platform on ICT Standardisation

  1. European Multi Stakeholder Platform on ICT Standardisation
      1. Purpose of this Page
    1. The Rolling Plan
      1. Introduction
      2. Draft Rolling Plan 2020
      3. General comments
    2. 3.1 Key enablers and security
      1. 3.1.1 5G
      2. 3.1.2 Cloud computing
      3. 3.1.3. Public sector information, open data and big data
      4. 3.1.4. Internet of Things
      5. 3.1.5. Cybersecurity / network and information security
      6. 3.1.6 Electronic identification and trust services including e-signatures
      7. 3.1.7 ePrivacy
      8. 3.1.8 e-Infrastructures for research data and computing intensive science
      9. 3.1.9 Broadband infrastructure mapping
      10. 3.1.10 Accessibility of ICT products and services
      11. 3.1.11 Artificial Intelligence
      12. 3.1.12 European Global Navigation Satellite System (EGNSS)
    3. 3.2 Societal challenges
      1. 3.2.1 eHealth, healthy living and ageing
      2. 3.2.2 e-Skills and e-Learning
      3. 3.2.3 Emergency communications
      4. 3.2.4 eGovernment
      5. 3.2.5 e-Call
    4. 3.3 Innovation for the Digital Single Market
      1. 3.3.1 e-Procurement – Pre and Post award
      2. 3.3.2 e-Invoicing
      3. 3.3.3 Card, Internet, and Mobile Payments
      4. 3.3.4 Preservation of digital cinema
      5. 3.3.5 Fin-Tech and Reg-Tech standardisation
      6. 3.3.6 Blockchain and Distributed Digital Ledger Technologies
    5. 3.4 Sustainable growth
      1. 3.4.1 Smart grids and Smart Metering
      2. 3.4.2 Smart Cities / Technologies and Services for a smart and …
      3. 3.4.3. ICT Environmental Impact
      4. 3.4.4. European Electronic Toll Service (EETS)
      5. 3.4.5. Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)
      6. 3.4.6 Advanced Manufacturing
      7. 3.4.7. Robotics and autonomous systems
      8. 3.4.8 Construction - Building Information Modelling
      9. 3.4.9 Common Information Sharing Environment (CISE) for the EU …
      10. 3.4.10 Water Management Digitisation
      11. 3.4.11 Single European Sky
    6. Document Editing History

This is a public working draft that has not been reviewed by the IAB or the IETF

Purpose of this Page

This page contains specific information about the IETF relevant to the European Multi Stakeholder Platform on ICT Standardisation, MSP for short. This page is intended for the stakeholders that seek information specific to the MSP's work and how that work relates to the IETF, it is not intended for IETF participants seeking more information about the MSP.

For more detailed information, or to submit relevant information to the MSP, please contact Mat Ford (ford at isoc.org) or Andrei Robachevsky (robachevsky at isoc.org) who are the IETF representatives in the platform and the editors of this page.

The Rolling Plan

Introduction

This Rolling Plan for ICT Standardisation identifies EU policy priorities where ICT standardisation and ICT standards should be considered as part of policy making. The Rolling Plan is a strategic document focussing on the support that standards, technical specifications, and standardisation in general can provide in the context of EU policy priorities.

The Rolling Plan looks at the standardisation landscape in relation to the EU policy priorities. It identifies possible areas for action and may go into suggesting a plan or roadmap regarding effective standardisation support.

In chapter 3 of the Rolling Plan various policy areas are identified that need to be supported by ICT standardisation. Below we follow the structure of this Rolling Plan and supply information about the related standardisation and research activities in the IETF and IRTF. The final Rolling Plan itself incorporates the IETF-related sections on this page where appropriate.

Previous versions of the Rolling Plan and the IETF work that fits into it:

Draft Rolling Plan 2020

The current structure is based on the draft document "Rolling Plan on ICT Standardisation (2020 revision)". The objective of this page is to raise awareness regarding policy areas that need standardisation from a European Commission point of view and collect input regarding relevant work at the IETF and IRTF.

Since there may not be sufficient specific policy area expertise for each of the areas mentioned in Chapter 3 of the Rolling Plan the references below are likely to be incomplete. Readers are advised to review the IETF areas for potentially related technology work and contact Mat Ford or Andrei Robachevsky or any Area Director with general or specific questions.

General comments

  • From the EU RP Task Force: The Review process leads to a new version of the EU Rolling Plan on ICT Standardisation. The new version will be finalised by the MSP in December before being handed over to the Commission for endorsement and publication. From end of July until late September all MSP members have the opportunity to provide comments and further input to the draft Rolling Plan as provided by the European Commission. Focus should be put in particular to the actions (section C in each sub-chapter of Chapter 3). For an effective Rolling Plan it is important to have actions that are as precise as possible so that they can trigger respective standardisation work. Therefore, the CARV criteria should be met: actions should be Concrete, Achievable, Relevant and Voluntary.
  • The numbering of the various section titles refers to the numbers of the sections in the rolling plan.

3.1 Key enablers and security

3.1.1 5G

RP: The Communication on ICT standardisation priorities[11] identifies 5G standards as key to competitiveness and the interoperability of global networks, with stakeholders from different standardisation cultures called upon to collaborate. It also details the actions required.

The standardisation agenda of 5G has largely been set out. The aim is early availability of standards for 'super' broadband solutions. Special focus is given to ultra-reliability and low latency, which are also targets for the first 5G wave. The second phase should deliver the standards for other use-cases, such as those related to industrial applications. Here, availability of standards promoting open innovation and opportunities for start-up is also key.

The European Commission has called on Member States and industry to commit to the following objectives:

  • a standardisation approach that preserves future evolution capabilities and aims at availability of 5G global standards by end of 2019;
  • a holistic standardisation approach encompassing both radio access and core networks as coordinated activities within global standardisation bodies, encompassing disruptive use-cases and promoting open innovation;
  • establishment of cross-industry partnerships by 2017, at the latest, to support timely standard-setting, partly by leveraging international cooperation partnerships, in particular towards the digitisation of industry.

In December 2017, Commissioner Gabriel sent a letter to 3G PP, urging the standardisation bodies and the concerned industrial actors to step-up their efforts for the rapid development of 5G standards addressing more immediate market needs while driving a clear strategy for a 5G global standard bringing benefits to a wide range of industrial use cases, in line with the EU strategy targeting 5G developments in support of "vertical" industries and of our wider objectives of digitising the European industry.

Interactions between IETF and 5G developments fall into several categories:

  • New dependencies on existing IETF technology: For instance, introducing a flexible authentication framework based on EAP (RFC 3748, RFC 5448). This work is being addressed in the EAP Method Update (EMU) Working Group. This working group has been chartered to provide updates to some commonly used EAP methods. Specifically, the working group shall produce documents to:
    • Provide guidance or updates to enable the use of TLS 1.3 in the context of EAP TLS (RFC 5216). Update the security considerations relating to EAP TLS, to document the implications of using new vs. old TLS versions, any recently gained new knowledge on vulnerabilities, and the possible implications of pervasive surveillance.
    • Update the EAP-AKA' specification (RFC 5448) to ensure that its capability to provide a cryptographic binding to network context stays in sync with what updates may come to the referenced 3GPP specifications through the use of EAP in 5G.
  • There are many IETF tools already for dealing with virtualisation and separation of networks (see 3.1.2 Cloud computing, below), so the first order of business is mapping what can be done with those tools for the 5G use cases.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#FiveG

3.1.2 Cloud computing

RP: The Communication on ICT Standardisation Priorities for the digital single market proposes priority actions in the domain of Cloud. Actions mentioned below reflect some of them.

Action 1: Identify needs for ICT standards to further improve the interoperability, data protection and portability of cloud services and start respective development activities.

Action 2: Promote the use of the ICT standards needed to further improve the interoperability, data protection and portability of cloud services.

Action 3: Further strengthen the interlock between standardisation and open source in the area of Cloud and establish and support bilateral actions for close collaboration of open source and standardisation.

Action 4: Promote international standards on service level agreements (SLAs) and usage of the cloud code of conduct (CoC).

Action 5: ESOs are asked to update the mapping of cloud standards and guidelines for end-users (especially SMEs and the public sector), in collaboration with international SDOs, cloud providers and end users. This action could also draw on the material developed, e.g. to update the standards mapping carried out by cloud standards coordination phases 1 & 2.

Action 6: Promote the use of the ISO/IEC JTC 1 reference cloud architecture and define generic cloud architecture building blocks. Map available standards to the generic cloud architecture building blocks. Define privacy, security and test standards for each building block. This will also help determine which standards can be used for open cloud platforms and architectures taking into account the key role of open source for cloud infrastructure design and implementations.

The IETF has multiple groups working on standards for virtualization techniques, including techniques used in cloud computing and datacenters.

The Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (​L2VPN) Working Group produced specifications defining and specifying solutions for supporting provider-provisioned Layer-2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs). They also addressed requirements driven by cloud computing services and data centers as they apply to Layer-2 VPN services. The L2VPN Service Model (L2SM) Working Group is tasked to created a data model that describes an L2VPN service.

The Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (​L3VPN) Working Group was responsible for defining, specifying and extending solutions for supporting provider-provisioned Layer-3 (routed) Virtual Private Networks (L3VPNs). These solutions provide IPv4, IPv6, and MPLS services including multicast.

The Layer Three Virtual Private Network Service Model (L3SM) Working Group was tasked to create a YANG data model that describes an L3VPN service (an L3VPN service model) that can be used for communication between customers and network operators, and to provide input to automated control and configuration applications.

The Network Virtualization Overlays (​NVO3) Working Group develops a set of protocols and extensions that enable network virtualization within a datacenter environment that assumes an IP-based underlay. An NVO3 solution provides layer 2 and/or layer 3 services for virtual networks enabling multi-tenancy and workload mobility, addressing management and security issues.

The System for Cross-domain Identity Management (SCIM) Working Group worked on standardising methods for creating, reading, searching, modifying, and deleting user identities and identity-related objects across administrative domains, with the goal of simplifying common tasks related to user identity management in services and applications.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#Cloud

3.1.3. Public sector information, open data and big data

RP: With the continuously growing amount of data (often referred to as 'big data') and the increasing amount of open data, interoperability is increasingly a key issue in exploiting the value of this data.

Standardisation at different levels (such as metadata schemata, data representation formats and licensing conditions of open data) is essential to enable broad data integration, data exchange and interoperability with the overall goal of fostering innovation based on data. This refers to all types of (multilingual) data, including both structured and unstructured data, and data from different domains as diverse as geospatial data, statistical data, weather data, public sector information (PSI) and research data (see also the rolling plan contribution on 'e-Infrastructures for data and computing-intensive science'), to name just a few.

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.1.4. Internet of Things

RP: The Internet of Things (IoT) is a key priority area of the digital single market. The IoT is an emerging technology that connects more objects to the internet — including industrial processing machines and the items industrially processed (cyber-physical systems) , household equipment, wearable electronics, vehicles, and sensors. The number of such connected devices is expected to exceed 20 billion by 2020. Besides the innovation potential in many industrial sectors, the IoT also has the potential to help address many societal challenges including climate change, resource and energy efficiency and ageing.

A large number of proprietary or semi-closed solutions to address specific problems have emerged, leading to non-interoperable concepts, based on different architectures and protocols. Consequently, the deployment of truly IoT applications, i.e. where information of connectable “things” can be flexibly aggregated and scaled, has been limited to a set of "intranets of things — or goods".

In the emerging IoT economy, voluntary global standards can accelerate adoption, drive competition, and enable cost -effective introduction of new technologies. Standardisation facilitates the interoperability, compatibility, reliability, security and efficiency of operations on a global scale among different technical solutions, stimulating industry innovation and providing greater clarity to technology evolution. Interoperability between IoT networks operated by different companies along the value chain opens up opportunities to address EU policy objectives, e.g. greater resource efficiency for a more circular economy, sustainable and responsible supply chains through transparency and traceability, and others.

Industry is in the best position to develop the technological standards and solutions to address global IoT ecosystem opportunities and challenges. Therefore, there is a need for a secure solution that is interoperable and scales across a global IoT ecosystem. In this context, the European large-scale pilots (LSP), which were the subject of a call for proposals in 2016, are supporting the deployment of IoT solutions, by enhancing and testing their acceptability and adoption by users and the public, and by fostering new market opportunities for suppliers to the EU.

Large-scale pilots are providing the opportunity to demonstrate actual IoT solutions in real-life settings and should make it possible for providers to test business. The concept has now been broadened and further extended to more vertical sectors in the context of the 'Digitising and transforming European industry and services' focus area for cross-programme integrated activities around major challenges such as . Calls for proposals in 2018 and 2019 will result in the launch of more LSPs to notably address the digital transformation of manufacturing, health and care, agriculture, connected and automated driving, and include integration of space data and associated platforms.

The IETF has a number of Working Groups chartered to develop standards to support the Internet of Things.

The ​IPv6 Over Low Power WPAN (6LOWPAN) Working Group developed standards to ensure interoperability between smart object networks and defining the necessary security and management protocols and constructs for building such networks.

The IPv6 over Networks of Resource-constrained Nodes (6LO) Working Group develops IPv6 adaptation mechanisms to a wider range of radio technologies including “Bluetooth Low Energy” (RFC 7668), ITU-T G.9959 (as used in Z-Wave, RFC 7428), and the Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) Ultra Low Energy (ULE) cordless phone standard and the low-cost wired networking technology Master-Slave / Token-Passing (MS/TP) that is widely used over RS-485 in building automation.

The IPv6 Over Low Power Wide-Area Networks (lpwan) WG focuses on enabling IPv6 connectivity over the following selection of Low-Power Wide-Area networking technologies: SIGFOX, LoRa?, WI-SUN and NB-IOT.

The Light-Weight Implementation Guidance (LWIG) Working Group focuses on helping the implementors of the smallest devices. The goal is to be able to build minimal yet interoperable IP-capable devices for the most constrained environments.

The ​Routing over Low Power and Lossy Networks (ROLL) Working Group is developing standards to support the routing of communications within low-power and lossy networks.

The Constrained RESTful Environments (CORE) Working Group is specifying protocols that allow applications running in resource-constrained environments to interoperate with each other and the rest of the Internet. CORE is one of the most active IoT groups. Its main output centres around the “Constrained Application Protocol” (CoAP, RFC 7252), a radically simplified UDP-based analog to HTTP. Extensions to CoAP enable group communications (RFC 7390) and low-complexity server-push for the observation of resources (RFC 7641). This is complemented by a discovery and self-description mechanism based on a weblink format suitable for constrained devices (RFC 6690). Current WG activities focus on extensions that enable transfer of large resources, use of resource directories for coordinating discovery, reusable interface descriptions, and the transport of CoAP over TCP and TLS. CoRE is also looking at a data format to represent sensor measurements, which will benefit from the “Concise Binary Object Representation” (CBOR) (RFC 7049), a JSON analog optimised for binary data and low-resource implementations.

Security aspects of the IoT are being addressed in the following Working Groups:

The Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP) WG is working on standardising protocols for provisioning applications into secure areas of computer processors.

The Software Updates for Internet of Things (SUIT) WG is working on mechanisms for securely updating the firmware in IoT devices.

The Authentication and Authorisation for Constrained Environments (ACE) WG is working on a standardised solution for authentication and authorisation to enable authorised access to resources on a device in constrained environments. In such environments, typical for the IoT, the network nodes are limited in CPU, memory and power. This work was supported by the COSE WG that built simplified CBOR analogs for the JSON object signing and encryption methods that were developed in the JOSE WG.

The DTLS In Constrained Environments (DICE) WG focused on supporting the use of DTLS Transport-Layer Security in these environments. Such constrained environments, including constrained devices (e.g. memory, algorithm choices) and constrained networks (e.g. PDU sizes, packet loss), are typical for the IoT, Smart grids, etc.

While the IoT-oriented IETF working groups have already produced the first wave of mature standards for IoT, new research questions are emerging based on the use of those standards. The IRTF Thing-to-Thing Research Group (T2TRG) was chartered in 2015 to investigate open research issues in IoT, focusing on issues that exhibit standardisation potential at the IETF.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#IOT

3.1.5. Cybersecurity / network and information security

RP: The Communication on ICT standardisation priorities for the digital single market proposes actions on cybersecurity, considered as priority domain for Europe For security and notification requirements for operators of essential services, the focus will be on establishing a number of reference standards and/or specifications relevant to network and information security, including, where relevant, harmonised standards, to serve as a basis for encouraging the coherent adoption of standardisation practices across the EU. For security and notification requirements for digital service providers, in line with the objectives of the Digital single market strategy, the Directive aims to establish a harmonised set of requirements so that they can expect similar rules wherever they operate in the EU. It is important that all levels of an organisation –particularly the strategic level and the management board - are aware of the need for standards and frameworks for cybersecurity. Moreover, between organisations that are partners in (vital) online chains, clear agreements will have to be made on the different standards.

The following IETF WGs are active in this area:

The Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange (MILE) WG develops standards to support computer and network security incident management. The WG is focused on two areas: IODEF (Incident Object Description Exchange Format, RFC5070), the data format and extensions to represent incident and indicator data, and RID (Real-time Inter-network Defense, RFC6545), the policy and transport for structured data.

The Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) WG is working on standardising protocols to collect, verify, and update system security configurations that allow high degree of automation. This facilitates securing information and the systems that store, process, and transmit that information. The focus of the WG is the assessment of network endpoint compliance with security policies so that corrective measures can be provided before they are exposed to those threats.

The aim of DDoS Open Threat Signalling (DOTS) WG is to develop a standards based approach for the realtime signalling of DDoS related telemetry and threat handling requests and data between elements concerned with DDoS attack detection, classification, traceback, and mitigation.

The goal of the Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) WG is to define a set of software interfaces and data models for controlling and monitoring aspects of physical and virtual NSFs. A Network Security Function (NSF) is a function used to ensure integrity, confidentiality, or availability of network communications, to detect unwanted network activity, or to block or at least mitigate the effects of unwanted activity. The hosted, or cloud-based, security service is especially attractive to small and medium size enterprises who suffer from a lack of security experts to continuously monitor networks, acquire new skills and propose immediate mitigations to ever increasing sets of security attacks.

The Source Address Validation Improvements (savi) WG develops standardised mechanisms that prevent nodes attached to the same IP link from spoofing each other's IP addresses.

The full list of IETF Working Groups in the Security Area is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/#sec

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#NISec

3.1.6 Electronic identification and trust services including e-signatures

RP: The eIDAS Regulation adopted on 23 July 2014 addresses in one comprehensive piece of legislation, electronic identification, electronic signatures, electronic seals, time stamping, electronic delivery, electronic documents and website certificates as core instruments for electronic transactions. To support the implementation of this highly technical regulation, further standardisation work will be needed. In the case of trust services, the planned secondary legislation refers extensively to the availability of standards as possible means to meet the regulatory requirements. Existing standards should be checked to take account of the protection of individuals with regard to personal data processing and the free movement of such data. Specific privacy by design standards should be identified and where needed developed. The accessibility needs of persons with disabilities should also be taken into account.

The following IETF Working Groups are active in this area:

The Web Authorization Protocol (OAUTH) WG developed a protocol suite that allows a user to grant a third-party Web site or application access to the user's protected resources, without necessarily revealing their long-term credentials, or even their identity. It also developed security schemes for presenting authorisation tokens to access a protected resource.

The ongoing standardisation effort within the OAUTH working group is focusing on enhancing interoperability of OAUTH deployments.

The Public Notary Transparency (TRANS) WG develops a standards-track specification of the Certificate Transparency protocol (RFC6962) that allows detection of the mis-issuance of certificates issued by CAs or via ad-hoc mapping by maintaining cryptographically verifiable audit logs.

The Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) WG specifies conventions for automated X.509 certificate management, including validation of control over an identifier, certificate issuance, certificate renewal, and certificate revocation. The initial focus of the ACME WG is on domain name certificates (as used by web servers), but other uses of certificates can be considered as work progresses.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#eIdentity

3.1.7 ePrivacy

RP: The focus will be on establishing a number of reference standards and/or specifications relevant to privacy in the electronic communications environment, including, where relevant, harmonised standards, to serve as a basis for encouraging the coherent adoption of standardisation practises across the Union. The Commission recently has proposed a mandate to European Standards Organisations seeking to routinely include privacy management methodologies in both the design and production phases of cybersecurity technologies generally.

The SIP Best-practice Recommendations Against Network Dangers to privacY (sipbrandy) WG will define best practices for establishing two-party, SIP-signaled SRTP sessions with end-to-end security associations, including a single, preferred SRTP key exchange mechanism. These practices are expected to be deployable across typical SIP networks, without the sharing of SRTP keying material with intermediaries or third parties. These practices should protect against man-in-the-middle attacks.

The DNS PRIVate Exchange (dprive) WG develops mechanisms to provide confidentiality to DNS transactions, to address concerns surrounding pervasive monitoring (RFC 7258). The set of DNS requests that an individual makes can provide an attacker with a large amount of information about that individual. DPRIVE aims to deprive the attacker of this information.

The DNS Over HTTPS (doh) WG standardises encodings for DNS queries and responses that are suitable for use in HTTPS. This enables the domain name system to function over certain paths where existing DNS methods (UDP, TLS [RFC 7857], and DTLS [RFC 8094]) experience problems. DNS Queries over HTTPS (RFC8484) was published in October 2018.

The Internet Architecture Board has established a Privacy and Security Program to serve as a forum for synthesizing privacy thinking within the technical standards community and to create privacy design considerations for use within the IETF. RFC6973 "Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols" offers guidance for developing privacy considerations for inclusion in protocol specifications.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#ePrivacy

3.1.8 e-Infrastructures for research data and computing intensive science

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.1.9 Broadband infrastructure mapping

RP: Telecom manufacturers, operators and other stakeholders have an interest in assuring a minimum of interoperability of broadband infrastructure mapping to facilitate the deployment of next-generation networks, simplify their operation, reduce cost and finally open up a single market dimension. In order to achieve the EU broadband objectives of the Digital Agenda Europe, it is fundamentally important that there is reliable and valid data on existing and planned broadband infrastructures, services offered; and demand and investment. A standardised mapping of broadband infrastructures and services as well as of other related data will help identify gaps of broadband coverage and quality of service level and identify suitable areas of investment. Increasing the reliability of coverage data (QS1) will be particularly useful to avoid duplication of financing as subsidies can be allocated to areas truly affected by market failure and regulatory needs linked to market regulation. Gathering reliable quality of service data (QS2 and QS3) based on common methodologies will feed into other regulatory aspect linked to net neutrality and consumer protection as well as assisting in the provision of reliable 5G services to vertical industries.

The Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) Working Group standardised the LMAP measurement system for performance measurements of broadband access devices such as home and enterprise edge routers, personal computers, mobile devices, and set top boxes, whether wired or wireless.

Measuring portions of the Internet on a large scale is essential for accurate characterisations of performance over time and geography, for network diagnostic investigations by providers and their users, and for collecting information to support public policy development. The goal is to have the measurements (made using the same metrics and mechanisms) for a large number of points on the Internet, and to have the results collected and stored in the same form.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#BImap

3.1.10 Accessibility of ICT products and services

RP: Standardisation needs arise, for instance from the UN Convention, Article 9 of which requires the development of accessibility standards, and from the general obligations to promote universal design when drafting standards. Work on this area needs to advance at European level, where possible in coordination with related work at international level, and to support harmonised market requirements within Europe.

Relevant work may be found in the ART area. For instance RFC 3551 identifies the requirements for SIP to support the hearing impaired and RFC4103 defines the RTP payload for text conversation.

RFCs 4103 and 5194 are being referenced in various accessibility regulations being proposed in the US (Section 255/508) and EU (e.g. M376).

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#ICTAccess

3.1.11 Artificial Intelligence

RP: AI is a field that has had little standardisation activities in the past. However, the big increase of interest and activities around AI in the latest years brings together a need for the development of a coherent set of AI standards. In response to this, ISO has created a standardisation committee on AI, namely ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42, which is mostly active in the field of big data. The professional association IEEE is also very active in investigating and proposing new standards for AI, particularly in the field of ethics of autonomous and intelligent systems. The European Commission has launched its Communications of 25th April and a number of initiatives about AI, which are commented below.

Most of these activities are recent and will lead to requests for developing new standards. For the time being, there are no significant past activities to report about their progress.

The most likely areas where new AI standards will be required are the following:

  • AI vocabulary and definitions
  • Benchmarking
  • Ethics
  • Safety
  • Knowledge representation
  • Data interchange formats
  • Computer system integration and APIs

The IETF Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach Working Group will develop a system of autonomic functions that carry out the intentions of the network operator without the need for detailed low- level management of individual devices. This will be done by providing a secure closed-loop interaction mechanism whereby network elements cooperate directly to satisfy management intent. The working group will develop a control paradigm where network processes coordinate their decisions and automatically translate them into local actions, based on various sources of information including operator-supplied configuration information or from the existing protocols, such as routing protocol, etc.

Autonomic networking refers to the self-managing characteristics (configuration, protection, healing, and optimization) of distributed network elements, adapting to unpredictable changes while hiding intrinsic complexity from operators and users. Autonomic Networking, which often involves closed-loop control, is applicable to the complete network (functions) lifecycle (e.g. installation, commissioning, operating, etc). An autonomic function that works in a distributed way across various network elements is a candidate for protocol design. Such functions should allow central guidance and reporting, and co-existence with non-autonomic methods of management. The general objective of this working group is to enable the progressive introduction of autonomic functions into operational networks, as well as reusable autonomic network infrastructure, in order to reduce operating expenses.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#AI

3.1.12 European Global Navigation Satellite System (EGNSS)

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#EGNSS


3.2 Societal challenges

3.2.1 eHealth, healthy living and ageing

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.2.2 e-Skills and e-Learning

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.2.3 Emergency communications

RP: The lack of commonly agreed standards in support of electronic communications networks for the emergency call service in Europe is a barrier to implementing future proof solutions which meet the requirements of the amended Universal Service Directive (Directive 2002/22/EC). Standards for total conversation access to 112 are required to meet special needs for users’ rights under Directive 2009/136/EC. The lack of harmonised values for location accuracy and reliability hampers Member State's efforts to develop adequate solutions.

The Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies (ECRIT) Working Group has developed a general architecture for enabling IP applications to discover and connect to emergency services.

The Geographic Location/Privacy (GEOPRIV) Working Group developed protocols that allow IP networks to inform end devices about their geolocation, a critical pre-requisite for emergency calling.

The application-specific working groups in the IETF (for example, the Session Initiation Protocol Core (SIPCORE) Working Group) have developed extensions to support emergency calling as required.

The Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) WG is developing Internet-based mechanisms that allow verification of the calling party's authorisation to use a particular telephone number for an incoming call. The main focus is on the SIP as one of the main VoIP technologies used by parties that want to misrepresent their origin, in this context the telephone number of origin. See, for example, RFC7375 "Secure telephone identity threat model".

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#Emergency

3.2.4 eGovernment

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.2.5 e-Call

RP: In the event of an accident, in-vehicle sensors will automatically trigger an eCall. An audio connection is made with the European emergency number 112 and routed to the PSAP. At the same time, an emergency message is sent, providing information (the minimum set of data, or MSD) including the time, location and driving direction. The emergency call can also be triggered manually. Further conformance, performance and periodic tests need to be developed and innovative solutions found for situations (such as low cost, low power P2WVs) where normal full eCall provisions are not practical. The European eCall Implementation Platform is making recommendations to ensure the best operation of the service and to take full advantage of all its possibilities. eCall is regulated for the life of the vehicle, and further provisions may be required in respect of periodic technical inspection (PTI) and test, and at end of life decommissioning. Recognising that introducing the service via new vehicle models will mean taking considerable time to equip all cars, EU regulation has already encouraged automotive manufacturers to voluntarily introduce eCall in existing models. However, now that the public land mobile network (PLMN) and PSAP support networks are in place and operational, there is a considerable aftermarket opportunity to bring the benefits of eCall to the current stock of vehicles throughout Europe, and several equipment vendors (both from within Europe and abroad) have already shown interest to fill this market niche, in some cases directly for 112-eCall, and in others for third-party service-supported eCall. Other entrants are expected. However, as it will prove more difficult to control the performance and quality of such aftermarket devices, there is an urgent need to develop standards for the physical parameters, installation and operational performance of such aftermarket devices, to enable adequate certification and PTI provisions. This will be essential to avoid PSAPs to be potentially inundated with false messages from such devices, and to increase the reliable and safe operation of such devices. Subsequently (voluntary) specifications have been developed to extend the benefits of eCall to all categories of vehicles, and to migrate from 2G/3G communications to any wireless IMS communications media, and in special circumstances, to be supported over satellite communications. As soon as the new specifications are validated it may be desirable to upgrade them to EN’s, so that they may be referenceable in extensions to the current regulations.

The Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies (ECRIT) Working Group has developed a general architecture for enabling IP applications to discover and connect to emergency services.

The Geographic Location/Privacy (GEOPRIV) Working Group has developed protocols that allow IP networks to inform end devices about their geolocation, a critical pre-requisite for emergency calling.

The application-specific working groups in the IETF (for example, the Session Initiation Protocol Core (SIPCORE) Working Group) have developed extensions to support emergency calling as required.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#eCall


3.3 Innovation for the Digital Single Market

3.3.1 e-Procurement – Pre and Post award

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.3.2 e-Invoicing

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.3.3 Card, Internet, and Mobile Payments

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.3.4 Preservation of digital cinema

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.3.5 Fin-Tech and Reg-Tech standardisation

RP: Traditional financial institutions realize they have a lot to lose or gain from the Fintech revolution and invest huge effort and money to adapt their technology and processes to adjust to a new environment, find a place in this new ecosystem, compete with new business models and respond to new consumer needs and behaviours. Across Europe, there has been considerable uptake of new digital channels: over 58% of Western Europeans (85% for Northern Europeans) prefer to use digital over physical branches, compared to 52% of US bank customers. These trends have grabbed the attention of investors who have made massive investments, growing by 75% in 2015 to $22.3bn, five times higher than in 2013.

Fintech start-ups appear with innovative solutions challenging existing financial services business models, markets and regulation. The existing legal framework is being reviewed at EU level and the concept of regulatory experimentation frameworks (or sandboxes) explored to help address this transformation and enable innovation.

Some regulatory adjustments have already been adopted such as amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering directive and the use of electronic identification. Since July 2016, the Electronic Identification and Trust Services Regulation can give e-transactions and other e-signed documents the same legal status as those that are paper-based. The new Capital Requirement Regulation CRR2 package adopted in 2016 takes technological innovations into consideration, and so is the 2017 Action Plan for Retail Financial Services.

Following several public consultations regarding financial services and the EU Parliament report on blockchain and virtual currencies, the Commission has set-up a horizontal Financial Technology Task Force to explore the impact of new financial technologies on consumers and businesses and the possible risks for financial stability. One of the work streams of the Task Force focuses on Interoperability and Standardisation.

In parallel, and in relation to the need for more harmonised supervisory reporting, in its Communication on the CfE: “EU regulatory framework for financial services" the Commission committed to investigate and address the concerns around the costs and complexity of reporting by undertaking a review of reporting requirements in the financial sector. This work is performed within the ongoing financial data standardisation (FDS) project which will produce a comprehensive mapping of reporting requirements and aims to develop a common language on financial data. This initiative forms a key contribution to the Commission's Better Regulation agenda and the Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) programme, which ensures that EU Legislation delivers results for citizens and businesses effectively, efficiently and at minimum cost.

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.3.6 Blockchain and Distributed Digital Ledger Technologies

RP: Blockchain has great potential in providing an infrastructure for trusted, decentralised and disintermediated services beyond the financial sector. The first Semester of 2018 has seen $6.3bn invested in ICOs and $885mn for VC.[1]

While the FinTech? industry has been an early adopter because of its early awareness of bitcoin, blockchain will benefit many other industries. It is considered a foundational technology that some compare to the raise of the Internet in the early 90s. More than a technology, it could lead to a major political innovation by redefining the way we operate transactions, access information and share data (e.g. empowering patients to securely share e-health records and decide who to grant access to their data).

Blockchain is a promising technology to share data and manage transactions in a controlled manner, with many possible applications to deliver social goods in the field of eHealth and eGovernment, health records, land registries or the security certification of links in an Internet of Things chain of devices, manage intellectual property rights and eID.

It has also great potential for the private sector, in trading, contracting, supply chain management, traceability along industrial supply chains (e.g. on social & environmental conditions of work, on material composition or on the maintenance history of the item) and much more. It may also transform the governance of private organisations and of companies (concept of Decentralised Autonomous Organisation - DAO), and hence impact labour rights. Furthermore, from a regulatory and supervisory point of view, it can provide regulators with the same view into the data as the companies they're regulating, thereby reducing fraud and compliance costs.

However, this process is hindered by a lack of harmonisation and interoperability that constitute obstacles to cross border and cross sector transactions. The responsibility for public policy-makers would be to support innovation within a safe and future-proof technological and regulatory environment, ensuring appropriate transparency, accessibility, monitoring and governance

In the context of a DSM where the amount of online transactions and data is exploding, setting the right conditions for the advent of an open, trustworthy, transparent, compliant and authenticated transaction system is a real challenge for the EU. Existing decentralised environments lack trust, accountability, interoperability, regulatory certainty and mature governance models.

A Research Group is in formation in the IRTF on the topic of Decentralized Internet Infrastructure (DIN). The Decentralized Internet Infrastructure Research Group (DINRG) will investigate open research issues in decentralizing infrastructure services such as trust management, identity management, name resolution, resource/asset ownership management, and resource discovery. The focus of DINRG is on infrastructure services that can benefit from decentralization or that are difficult to realize in local, potentially connectivity-constrained networks. Other topics of interest are the investigation of economic drivers and incentives and the development and operation of experimental platforms. DINRG will operate in a technology- and solution-neutral manner, i.e., while the RG has an interest in distributed ledger technologies, it is not limited to specific technologies or implementation aspects.

More details of the DIN RG are available.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#Ledger


3.4 Sustainable growth

3.4.1 Smart grids and Smart Metering

RP:Standards are needed to cover the communication needs of the grid management, balancing and interfacing with the millions of new renewable sources, as well as standards for the complex interactions of the new distributed energy market, and in special a transparent Demand Response scheme which is accessible for all consumers. Communication standards will also be crucial for the deployment of electric cars and the building-up of smart cities. Harmonised communication protocols would provide standard components and interfaces giving ‘plug-and-play’ capability for any new entrant to the network, such as renewables or electric cars, or the use of open architectures based on global communication standards. To further promote interoperability, in addition to standardisation, testing and profiling should also be considered. A major challenge is engaging the right stakeholders which need to be brought together to conduct the standardisation work taking into account that between smart grid management (of relevance to utility producers, the utility network operators) and smart consumption (involving the end consumer) a seamless environment should be established where interests are not identical and potentially conflicting.

RFC6272 identifies the key infrastructure protocols of the Internet Protocol Suite for use in the Smart Grid. The target audience is those people seeking guidance on how to construct an appropriate Internet Protocol Suite profile for the Smart Grid. In practice, such a profile would consist of selecting what is needed for Smart Grid deployment from the picture presented here.

The ​Energy Management (EMAN) WG has produced several specifications for an energy management framework, for power/energy monitoring and configuration. See http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/eman/documents/ for the details. The framework focuses on energy management for IP-based network equipment (routers, switches, PCs, IP cameras, phones and the like).

Many of the IETF Working Groups listed under section 3.1.4 Internet of Things above are developing standards for embedded devices that may also be applicable to Smart grids.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#SmartGrid

3.4.2 Smart Cities / Technologies and Services for a smart and efficient energy use

RP: In standards terms, there are some over-arching requirements, concerning standards for the way cities are managed, for common terminologies, for citizens’ interface with their local authority, etc. But mainly, smart city standards topics relate to the need to ensure commonalities —as far as these are appropriate and cost-effective— between the approaches taken by the different application areas, to enable the city to derive the best horizontal advantage from its overall approach and above all benefit from interoperability. The standards requirements as such for these application areas are specified in the Rolling Plan elsewhere at the appropriate points. The core components in such a complex system are the frameworks that assist companies, cities and other actors to provide appropriate solutions that prioritise economic, social and environmental outcomes. Solutions should address the whole lifecycle, optimising environmental, social and economic outcomes through the seamless transfer of information.

The ​Energy Management (EMAN) WG has produced several specifications for an energy management framework, for power/energy monitoring and configuration. See http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/eman/documents/ for the details. The framework focuses on energy management for IP-based network equipment (routers, switches, PCs, IP cameras, phones and the like).

A recently published standards track specification (RFC7603) presents the applicability of the EMAN information model in a variety of scenarios with cases and target devices. These use cases are useful for identifying requirements for the framework and MIBs. Further, it describes the relationship of the EMAN framework to other relevant energy monitoring standards and architectures.

Many of the IETF Working Groups listed under section 3.1.4 Internet of Things above are developing standards for embedded devices that may also be applicable to this section.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#SmartEnergy

3.4.3. ICT Environmental Impact

RP: A key challenge is achieving transparency around claims relating to the environmental performance of ICT products and services, and setting an effective basis to drive competition.

The ​Energy Management (EMAN) Working Group has produced several specifications for an energy management framework, for power/energy monitoring and configuration. See http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/eman/documents/ for the details. The framework focuses on energy management for IP-based network equipment (routers, switches, PCs, IP cameras, phones and the like).

A recently published standards track specification (RFC7603) presents the applicability of the EMAN information model in a variety of scenarios with cases and target devices. These use cases are useful for identifying requirements for the framework and MIBs. Further, it describes the relationship of the EMAN framework to other relevant energy monitoring standards and architectures.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#ICTenvironment

3.4.4. European Electronic Toll Service (EETS)

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.4.5. Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)

RP: To take full advantage of the benefits that ICT-based systems and applications can bring to the transport sector it is necessary to ensure interoperability and continuity of the services among the different systems throughout Europe. The existence of common European standards and technical specifications is paramount to ensure the interoperability of ITS services and applications and to accelerate their introduction and impact. International cooperation aiming at global harmonisation should be pursued.

The Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies (ECRIT) Working Group has developed a general architecture for enabling IP applications to discover and connect to emergency services.

The [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/about/ Geographic Location/Privacy? (GEOPRIV) Working Group) has developed protocols that allow IP networks to inform end devices about their geolocation, a critical pre-requisite for emergency calling.

The application-specific working groups in the IETF (for example, the [https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sipcore/about/ Session Initiation Protocol Core (SIPCORE) Working Group) have developed extensions to support emergency calling as required.

The IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments (ipwave) WG works on Vehicle-2-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-2-Internet (V2I) use-cases where IP is well-suited as a networking technology and will develop an IPv6 based solution to establish direct and secure connectivity between a vehicle and other vehicles or stationary systems. These vehicular networks are characterized by dynamically changing network topologies and connectivity.

V2V and V2I communications may involve various kinds of link layers: 802.11-OCB (Outside the Context of a Basic Service Set), 802.15.4 with 6lowpan, 802.11ad, VLC (Visible Light Communications), IrDA, LTE-D, LP-WAN. One of the most used link layers for vehicular networks is IEEE 802.11-OCB, as a basis for Dedicated short-range communications (DSRC). Several of these link-layers already provide support for IPv6. However, IPv6 on 802.11-OCB is yet to be fully defined. Some aspects of the IPv6 over 802.11-OCB work have been already defined at IEEE 1609 and the specification produced by this working group is expected be compatible with these aspects.

This group's primary deliverable (and the only Standards track item) will be a document that will specify the mechanisms for transmission of IPv6 datagrams over IEEE 802.11-OCB mode.

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iab/wiki/Multi-Stake-Holder-Platform#IntelligentTransport

3.4.6 Advanced Manufacturing

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.4.7. Robotics and autonomous systems

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.4.8 Construction - Building Information Modelling

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.4.9 Common Information Sharing Environment (CISE) for the EU maritime domain

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.4.10 Water Management Digitisation

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF

3.4.11 Single European Sky

Editor's note: No specific work identified in the IETF or IRTF


Document Editing History

2013-07-04: Initial layout and first draft descriptions added.

2013-08-04: Added reference to Emun WG in section 3.3.2

2014-03-12: Added link to the final document and modified link to point to more accessible MSP pages

2015-08-27: Updated the document reflecting the draft 2016 Rolling Plan

2016-08-08: Changed the structure, moving the materials related to RP2016 to a separate page. Updated with the current draft of the RP 2017

2016-08-23: A round of updates to reflect current work

2017-09-12: Backup RP2017, created template RP2018

2017-09-20: Update to reflect current IETF and IRTF work, and to include updated text from RP2018 regarding EC perspectives

2017-09-22: More updates to reflect current IETF/IRTF work

2018-08-27: Archived RP2018, updates to reflect RP2019 changes

2018-09-19: Final updates prior to submission to EC RP 2019

2019-09-03: Archived RP2019, updates to reflect RP2020 changes

2019-09-10: Minor updates to prepare for RP2020 draft submission deadline

Last modified 10 months ago Last modified on 10/09/19 11:48:22

Attachments (2)

Download all attachments as: .zip