29 Mar
2017
29 Mar
'17
9:56 a.m.
Hi all,
As the meeting was rather shortly announced, there was little turnout with
mostly Rikard and myself discussing things. So I suggest we take the rest
to the mailing list.
1) Current State of IoT, XMPP and the IEEE group
We currently have a couple of IoT XEPs, namely XEP-0323, XEP-0324,
XEP-0325, XEP-0326 and XEP-0347. Which nearly all have been automatically
moved to Deferred state after a year of inactivity.
There is a IEEE Working Group working on an IoT standard, namely
ISO/IEC/IEEE WD 21451-1-4, which make heavy use of XMPP technology, in the
form of the Deferred XEPs.
At the recent XMPP Summit in Brussels, Belgium, there was a clear sign that
the way the current IoT XEPs make use of XMPP is not ideal and could be
improved by reusing existing XMPP XEPs.
Ideally the IEEE WG would like to see the XEPs move on in the
standardisation process. However, in their current form this is unlikely
and it is very likely that changes are required in response to potential
Last Call for them to move forward.
Whether the current XEPs are advanced, or we come up with a new XEP that
does things more in the XMPP way, it will require an author writing all
this up.
Who would be willing to do that authoring work?
2) Setting up a liaison between the XSF and the IEEE WG
Up until recently, the larger XMPP community was unaware of the IEEE WG's
use of the IoT XEPs for their standard. If we knew about this situation
earlier, we might have avoided the current less ideal situation.
For the future, it would be ideal if we setup a liaison between the IEEE WG
and the XSF, so that each side is informed about the current state and
progress of their standardisation work.
Is there a person in the XSF or the XMPP community, who would be willing to
act as such liaison?
Please reply to the IoT list at iot(a)xmpp.org.
Cheers,
Tobi