Hi all,

Great to see so much interested in XMPP for IoT applications.  The XEP was basically a summarization of how we had been using XMPP and pubsub in our sensor andrew project.  We were also lucky enough to get a fair amount of input form Charles at Google with some interesting use-cases and a few idea on reducing message traffic.  The main hangup was that the XMPP council didn't like the idea of linking sensors and actuators and there was some concern if pubsub was generally a good fit for actuation.  We basically decided that as researchers in a University environment we would just keep doing what we were doing and revisit the XEP in the future if there was more interest.    One easy fix would have been for us to split the XEP into a sensor and actuator document.  

I would be very interested to hear about how you all have been structuring your XMPP communication.  Is it similar to what we proposed?  Is anyone using pubsub?  We are still actively using our proposed model with a few minor changes to the XEP.  Our most recent version of the XEP document can be found here:
http://sensor.andrew.cmu.edu/xep/sox-xep.html

We also have a simple tutorial for getting up and running with our tools:
http://sensor.andrew.cmu.edu:9000/raw-attachment/wiki/quick-start/sensor-andrew-tutorial.pdf

As for implementations, we have a C, java and python version of our library (called SOX) that we have continued to develop.   We have been focusing our recent efforts on the slightly higher-level problems associated with data storage, meta information management and application hosting.  These all for the most part exist above the XEP which is just our simple message passing format.

I wouldn't be opposed to revamping our XEP with other's inputs and trying to resubmit.  We have been getting interest from our corporate sponsors to take another shot at the XEP.

    -Anthony

On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:16 AM, mat henshall <mat@squareconnect.com> wrote:

We are using XMPP for both sensor reporting and control for building and home automation applications. We have implemented a very rich set of stanza's that cover almost all common types of devices and it is designed to work on very low resource embedded devices. This implementation is currently in closed beta although there are some very large brands who have started to develop applications and hardware using our protocol and technology. Our intention is to make the protocol public once we had a full working public available implementation.

When we became aware of the proposed XEP extension mentioned here we were already a long way down the road with our own, and as there is so much more to making a complete system than is exposed in this XEP, we felt we needed a working implementation to compare and contrast and make meaningful contributions based on experience... 

We would be excited to work with others on creating a standard... the problem as always is time to commit to this exercise. That being said, we do have executing code and multiple devices talking to each otehr across continents... so I think we are at the stage where we could add to any serious attempt for standardization.

Mat







On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
Hi all,

I was actually wondering myself about the status of XMPP & SIP usage for sensors. I dropped Peter a mail a month ago to hear more about the deployment situation.
It seems that if there are implementations then they are using HTTP.

Ciao
Hannes

On Dec 17, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:

> On 17 December 2012 12:35, Peter Waher <Peter.Waher@clayster.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I’m writing to you to, to ask about the status of the following document:
>>
>> http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sensors.html
>>
>
>> I’m interested in developing extensions for allowing sensor data communication and IoT, among other things. We have multiple applications using XMPP and sensors. Before proposing an extension by ourselves, I’ve been waiting to find colleagues working in the same area, so we could propose an extension together, this increasing the probability for it to become useful.
>>
>> What is the status of the above mentioned document? Is it set in stone, or is it possible to work on it, redefine parts of it, etc., in order for it to become more general and suitable also to our needs? Are you able to invite other authors to partake in the development of this proposed extension?
>
> It was rejected by the council at its meeting 2011-04-27:
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/council/2011-May/003164.html
>
> Nathan posted his reasoning here:
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2011-May/024545.html - and
> the discussion continued here:
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2011-May/024547.html
>
> No new version was submitted as far as I know, and I know of no public
> implementations of the protocol (that's not to say there aren't any of
> course...).
>
> Regards,
> Matthew




--

Mat Henshall
Founder and CEO, Square Connect, Inc.
San Jose, CA
www.squareconnect.com
cell: 650.814.7585