Re: [Standards] [IOT] IoT SIG: overview informational XEP

[Rikard Strid]

Thanks. ☺

Rikard

On 2016-10-13, 06:06, "IOT on behalf of Peter Saint-Andre" 
 wrote:

On 10/12/16 2:02 PM, Rikard Strid wrote:

> Peter Saint-Andre and Dave,
>
> Should this XEP be done using the XSF Git?

Yes, we'll handle it just like we handle all the other proposals. :-)

Peter


___
IOT mailing list
i...@xmpp.org
https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/iot


___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] [IOT] IoT SIG: overview informational XEP

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 10/12/16 2:02 PM, Rikard Strid wrote:


Peter Saint-Andre and Dave,

Should this XEP be done using the XSF Git?


Yes, we'll handle it just like we handle all the other proposals. :-)

Peter


___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] IoT SIG: overview informational XEP

[Rikard Strid]

Once again, I’m happy to see the we’re recharging the community ☺
That we’re are moving forward and I hope that we see more minds participating 
in the discussions.

Hi Peter W,

With your extensive background in IoT and as the author of most of the IoT 
XEPs, I think it would be very good and helpful if you can author/co-author the 
XEP. I’m happy to help with what I can. I think we both share the vision of a 
distributed autonomous Internet for Things and this is what will make that 
happen.

Let us have the conversation in the IoT mailing list, so we not tire out people 
about IoT, before we even begin the work…. ☺

I’ll send out a mail in the IoT mailing list to get things going.

Peter Saint-Andre and Dave,
Should this XEP be done using the XSF Git?

//Rikard



From: Standards  on behalf of Peter Waher 

Reply-To: XMPP Standards 
Date: Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 19:37
To: "standards@xmpp.org" , "i...@xmpp.org" 
Subject: [Standards] IoT SIG: overview informational XEP

Hello everybody

Regarding the XMPP IoT SIG deliverable §5:

> The IoT SIG should at a minumum produce an informational XEP
> that provides an overview of the XMPP IoT "landscape"; this document
> could help the XMPP community (including XSF members, leadership,
> and teams) understand the Intenet of Things and especially the
> applicability of XMPP to common IoT use cases.

Unless somebody else volunteers in writing this document, I volunteer writing 
one. Some questions:


· How is the procedure supposed to be?

· I write a draft and transmit it to the council for evaluation?

· Or should it be sent to the iot mailing list?

· Or should we agree on a disposition first, i.e. what 
sections/subsections to include?

· Are there any special criteria or considerations that have to be 
taken into account already from the beginning?

· Is there an interest by any other to co-author? Any preferences 
regarding to sections?

Best regards,
Peter Waher
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

[Standards] IoT SIG: overview informational XEP

[Peter Waher]

Hello everybody

Regarding the XMPP IoT SIG deliverable §5:

> The IoT SIG should at a minumum produce an informational XEP
> that provides an overview of the XMPP IoT "landscape"; this document
> could help the XMPP community (including XSF members, leadership,
> and teams) understand the Intenet of Things and especially the
> applicability of XMPP to common IoT use cases.

Unless somebody else volunteers in writing this document, I volunteer writing 
one. Some questions:


·How is the procedure supposed to be?

·I write a draft and transmit it to the council for evaluation?

·Or should it be sent to the iot mailing list?

·Or should we agree on a disposition first, i.e. what 
sections/subsections to include?

·Are there any special criteria or considerations that have to be taken 
into account already from the beginning?

·Is there an interest by any other to co-author? Any preferences 
regarding to sections?

Best regards,
Peter Waher
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

[Standards] XMPP IoT the two folded possibility/problem

[Joachim Lindborg]

(also in standards just to trigger the discussion)

The usage of XMPP in IoT is two folded:
98% of the IoT today is covering the need for a company to get their data
into their systems and makers that quickly would like to get some cool
stuff going.
-That is where XMPP usually gets compared to other solutions.

On the other hand XMPP is perfect transport layer for whatever exists
between two peers
-That is where we see the other end of the discussions, just let it be a
transport.

The work that Peter W and I started is so much bigger. XMPP was created to
let endusers send  messages between different chat islands, Now It can
bridge old and new IoT systems

(read this and think about the solution for a sec)
*XMPP IoT makes it possible for any company to produce a device sold in
thirdparty store, that an enduser securely can enroll into another company
IoT system. Then, on his command, share the data between different
companies to create a novel IoT Service, Without a centralized backend.*

Using XMPP,  PubSub to send UPnP spcific messages works.
Using an XMPP,adhoc message called "setpoint" with "42" can solve another
usecase.
A chat message with some nice payload {timestamp:"2016-10-12z12:47:12",
name:"setpoint", value:42} or "hue=42" is useful too.

I Agree that the IoT XEPs feels big, but it's a complex puzzle of different
usecases lets challenge them and battle test them for the different
solutions. We can change/rewrite/make new and put up some best practices
and put on wiki or xmpp.org


Written by Joachim Lindborg on a device running on solar energy from
watt-s.com
CTO, systems architect
Sustainable Innovation  SUST.se ,Tel +46 706-442270, linkedin

Barnhusgatan 3 111 23 Stockholm
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] [IOT] Fwd: Internet of Things SIG

[Joachim Lindborg]

I have longing for this! Love the initiative of the IoT SIG, looking
forward on the future discussions.

Put me on the working list.


Written by Joachim Lindborg on a device running on solar energy from
watt-s.com
CTO, systems architect
Sustainable Innovation  SUST.se ,Tel +46 706-442270, linkedin

Barnhusgatan 3 111 23 Stockholm

2016-10-12 11:11 GMT+02:00 Peter Waher :

> Hello
>
>
>
> > I propose that we form a special interest group (see XEP-0002) regarding
> the
>
> > use of XMPP in the Internet of Things:
>
> >
>
> > http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/iot-sig.html
>
>
>
> The IoT SIG sounds like an excellent idea.
>
>
>
> > Firstly, it'd be useful to gather a sense of the current state of
>
> > play. It seems to me we have a number of IoT-related XEPs and
>
> > proposals - due to a huge amount of effort by Peter Waher - but its
>
> > not clear to me which of these have any traction. It would be great if
>
> > people working on IoT (and using XMPP) could say which of these are
>
> > generally working well for them.
>
>
>
> It might be of interest to you, to know that the IEEE is working to form a
> new Group on ”IoT Harmonization”, in which XMPP plays an important role.
> XEPs under consideration at this forming stage are 0323, 0324, 0325, 0326 &
> 0347. You can review the slides from a presentation I held yesterday on
> this topic:
>
>
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/peterwaher/iot-harmonization-using-xmpp
>
>
>
> Let me know if anybody working with XMPP & IoT is interested to
> participate in such a working group. The goal is to form the group in
> January and have a first draft ready for balloting by the end of 2017.
>
>
>
> > Secondly, I'm of the opinion - and opinions can always be changed -
>
> > that the existing IoT proposals are something of an isolated suite.
>
>
>
> Yes and no. They have been abstracted. Some are more IoT related
> (323,324,325,326,347), others are more generic. EXI was written as reaction
> to the observation that XMPP is too verbose for some IoT applications and
> some networks. The Event logging (0337) is a generic infrastructural need,
> but it arose from logging in distributed IoT systems where many clients
> lack displays. HTTP over XMPP (0332) arose from the need to define web
> queries among distributed sets of sensors. Dynamic Forms (0336) as a way to
> create richer data forms, but is used in IoT since data values might take
> some time to fetch, and fields need to be able to be updated dynamically.
> Form signatures (0348) is needed to automate the creation of XMPP accounts,
> in a secure manner. Others that wait approval are also written to be
> generic, such as the QoS proposal – which originated as a need from IoT but
> has generic value. Event subscription is more directly IoT-related.
>
>
>
> > Looking at the IETF MILE Working Group, we have the XMPP-Grid proposal
>
> > which seems a similar shape to the IoT proposal, and similarly uses
>
> > little of the existing mechanics we have. For example, it provides a
>
> > publish-subscribe facility, a registration facility, and so on. The
>
> > payloads are different, but the essential goals the same. I cannot see
>
> > what would drive a difference in the containing protocol between (say)
>
> > counts of stanzas in an XMPP server, temperature readings in a sensor,
>
> > and sightings of a Cyber Observable pattern.
>
>
>
> There’s already a publish-subscribe based IoT solution defined by the
> UPnP, and published by the OIC/OCF:
>
> https://openconnectivity.org/resources/specifications/upnp/iot
>
>
>
> To create another one for this purpose seems unnecessary.
>
>
>
> While publish/subscribe might work well for several use cases, it’s not
> sufficient to cover all use cases, not even the most important use cases.
> It’s sole purpose is to make mass-dissemination more efficient. The IoT
> XEPs however, allow for a more general architecture, which is not limited
> to a single communication pattern, but allows for most patterns used today,
> depending on what is to be accomplished. See my presentation above for more
> information.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Peter Waher
>
> ___
> IOT mailing list
> i...@xmpp.org
> https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/iot
>
>
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___

Re: [Standards] Fwd: Internet of Things SIG

[Peter Waher]

Hello

> I propose that we form a special interest group (see XEP-0002) regarding the
> use of XMPP in the Internet of Things:
>
> http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/iot-sig.html

The IoT SIG sounds like an excellent idea.

> Firstly, it'd be useful to gather a sense of the current state of
> play. It seems to me we have a number of IoT-related XEPs and
> proposals - due to a huge amount of effort by Peter Waher - but its
> not clear to me which of these have any traction. It would be great if
> people working on IoT (and using XMPP) could say which of these are
> generally working well for them.

It might be of interest to you, to know that the IEEE is working to form a new 
Group on ”IoT Harmonization”, in which XMPP plays an important role. XEPs under 
consideration at this forming stage are 0323, 0324, 0325, 0326 & 0347. You can 
review the slides from a presentation I held yesterday on this topic:

http://www.slideshare.net/peterwaher/iot-harmonization-using-xmpp

Let me know if anybody working with XMPP & IoT is interested to participate in 
such a working group. The goal is to form the group in January and have a first 
draft ready for balloting by the end of 2017.

> Secondly, I'm of the opinion - and opinions can always be changed -
> that the existing IoT proposals are something of an isolated suite.

Yes and no. They have been abstracted. Some are more IoT related 
(323,324,325,326,347), others are more generic. EXI was written as reaction to 
the observation that XMPP is too verbose for some IoT applications and some 
networks. The Event logging (0337) is a generic infrastructural need, but it 
arose from logging in distributed IoT systems where many clients lack displays. 
HTTP over XMPP (0332) arose from the need to define web queries among 
distributed sets of sensors. Dynamic Forms (0336) as a way to create richer 
data forms, but is used in IoT since data values might take some time to fetch, 
and fields need to be able to be updated dynamically. Form signatures (0348) is 
needed to automate the creation of XMPP accounts, in a secure manner. Others 
that wait approval are also written to be generic, such as the QoS proposal – 
which originated as a need from IoT but has generic value. Event subscription 
is more directly IoT-related.

> Looking at the IETF MILE Working Group, we have the XMPP-Grid proposal
> which seems a similar shape to the IoT proposal, and similarly uses
> little of the existing mechanics we have. For example, it provides a
> publish-subscribe facility, a registration facility, and so on. The
> payloads are different, but the essential goals the same. I cannot see
> what would drive a difference in the containing protocol between (say)
> counts of stanzas in an XMPP server, temperature readings in a sensor,
> and sightings of a Cyber Observable pattern.

There’s already a publish-subscribe based IoT solution defined by the UPnP, and 
published by the OIC/OCF:
https://openconnectivity.org/resources/specifications/upnp/iot

To create another one for this purpose seems unnecessary.

While publish/subscribe might work well for several use cases, it’s not 
sufficient to cover all use cases, not even the most important use cases. It’s 
sole purpose is to make mass-dissemination more efficient. The IoT XEPs 
however, allow for a more general architecture, which is not limited to a 
single communication pattern, but allows for most patterns used today, 
depending on what is to be accomplished. See my presentation above for more 
information.

Best regards,
Peter Waher
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___