Re: Representative sample of industry protocols

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Benjamin Francis <bfrancis@mozilla.com>
wrote:

> On 24 October 2016 at 15:51, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> To show the challenge we’re facing with integrating the Web of things
>> with existing protocols, here is a representative sample of industry
>> protocols from a report from Aruba Networks (Connect and protect: Building
>> a trust-based Internet of things for business critical applications).
>>
>> See: www.arubanetworks.com/assets/wp/WP_ConnectProtectIoT.pdf
>>
>> The shear number of such protocols suggests that we need to look for a
>> scalable approach to working on protocol bindings where the work is largely
>> done by other organisations. Picking them off one by one for the IG
>> plugfests isn’t going to get us there, although we will learn a lot on the
>> way.
>>
>
> Exactly. Why would you even try to standardise bindings to all of these
> protocols?
>
> Why not define a single protocol binding for the Web of Things (HTTP,
> upgradeable to WebSockets for events)? Device or gateway implementations
> can map HTTP to non-web protocols on the back end wherever necessary.
>
> As an example, my team is currently working on a REST+WebSockets API for a
> gateway which uses ZigBee and ONVIF/WiFi on the back end. Another team
> previously created bindings to Z-Wave.
>
> Ben
>
>
agreed - this is the difference between IoT and WoT. IoT is like native
programming, the more platforms the better, more horses for more courses,
lots of things on the menu. WoT is a more constrained spectrum of options
to solve for the most common cases. which is why we document use cases
we're trying to address, etc.