Re: Representative sample of industry protocols

Hi Ben

When I started to be interested in WoT the line between WoT and IoT was
blurry. After a few months it is not better. Ok. A bit. My natural but
probably incorrect expectation is that when I start implement WoT solution
I will not need to switch between WoT and IoT if one of the protocols I
have to use is out of WoT scope. Unofficial draft contains MQTT binding as
well. MQTT does not fit in Web Protocols as well. But is widely used by
IoT. I think that counting on MQTT in WoT is step in the right direction.
But naturally then anyone can raise question why not XMPP. Jabber is widely
used. I have implemented solution where SSH was used to configure devices
by sending messages. There are Java EE enterprise solutions using messaging
as primary mean of communication. And who knows what new efficient protocol
will be invented soon. From the developer`s point of view I see lot of
benefits using upcoming WoT standards even not by Web Protocols. Sending TD
modeled messages using SSH, AMQP, XMPP etc. I can't come up with reason why
I should not. I think it is all about finding good place where put
abstraction. Maybe W3C should not step out of it's territory, maybe this is
the opportunity to make such a step or maybe it is just my misunderstanding
of WoT mission.

Regards

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Benjamin Francis <bfrancis@mozilla.com>
wrote:

> On 25 October 2016 at 10:32, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> I love HTTP, and initiated its standardisation in the IETF in the
>> nineties, but the wide variation in requirements across different
>> application domains means that the Web of things can’t be limited to HTTP
>> and WebSockets.  That said, I agree that defining protocol bindings to HTTP
>> should be a high priority given its widespread use for connecting gateways
>> to the cloud.
>>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Of course I recognise your incredibly long history of contributions to the
> web, but I don't think I understand your definition of the Web of Things.
> How would you describe the Web of Things if not giving Things URLs on the
> web?
>
> Surely if non-web protocols such as those you have listed are being used
> rather than web protocols then what you're talking about is the Internet of
> Things, but by definition not the Web of Things?
>
> Ben
>