In response to questions on ReD (RIPE 77)
Dear all, If you followed the discussions during RIPE 77, I did not have an immediate answer to the process of establishing a Delegated Act. Meanwhile a helpful person has supplied me with some more details: The document here https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/adopting-eu-law/implementin... contains some more information regarding the process. There is also a website that allow you to track delegated acts being prepared: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/regdel/#/home And of course my advise remains to also consult with your national regulator on your position under this Directive and its potential extensions. Regards, Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC
Dear Marco, thanks a for the excellent speech at RIPE-77’s IoT session regarding RED and the possible implications. As shortly discussed afterwards in person in my opinion especially the optional 3.3.i requirement (Only compliant software can be loaded) and the definition of the manufaturer requires further clarification. As you pointed out it’s unclear if in the case an alternative firmware is flashed on a device the manufacturer role switches from the device maker to the supplier of the alternative firmware. If that would be the case it would have significant implications, actually positive ones in my opinion. Speaking from a mostly wireless router/home gateway background the difficulties of RED (and similar FCC rulings) are that the regulatory settings (channels, transmit power, DFS….) are set by (driver) software for the majority of the available chipsets in conjunction with the chipset maker’s SDKs. Because of this the device makers cannot control what’s a „compliant software“ is and have to lock down their devices to prevent installing alternative firmwares to their devices. Except for Marvell no chipset maker introduced a technical solution for this regulatory issue. In case RED 3.3.i would define the manufacturer as the entitiy providing the firmware a lockdown would not be required anymore (in the EU) and pave the way for wider adoption of alternative firmwares like OpenWRT. Nevertheless it would make anybody who builds an alternative firmware responsible for it’s compliance. I hope we will get some clarification on that soon. Regards, Peter Steinhaeuser -- embeDD GmbH
Am 18.10.2018 um 16:24 schrieb Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@ripe.net>:
Dear all,
If you followed the discussions during RIPE 77, I did not have an immediate answer to the process of establishing a Delegated Act.
Meanwhile a helpful person has supplied me with some more details:
The document here https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/adopting-eu-law/implementin... contains some more information regarding the process.
There is also a website that allow you to track delegated acts being prepared: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/regdel/#/home
And of course my advise remains to also consult with your national regulator on your position under this Directive and its potential extensions.
Regards,
Marco Hogewoning -- External Relations - RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ iot-wg mailing list iot-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
participants (2)
-
Marco Hogewoning
-
Peter Steinhäuser