To XSF Members,
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:00 AM, iot-request@xmpp.org<iot-request@xmpp.org> wrote:Send IOT mailing list submissions toTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visitor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' toYou can reach the person managing the list atWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of IOT digest..."Today's Topics:1. Meeting Minutes of the XMPP IoT SIG from 2017-03-29(Tobias Markmann)----------------------------------------------------------------------Message: 1Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:56:34 +0200From: Tobias Markmann <tmarkmann@googlemail.com>To: iot@xmpp.orgCc: XMPP Standards <standards@xmpp.org>Subject: [IOT] Meeting Minutes of the XMPP IoT SIG from 2017-03-29Message-ID:Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"Hi all,As the meeting was rather shortly announced, there was little turnout withmostly Rikard and myself discussing things. So I suggest we take the restto the mailing list.1) Current State of IoT, XMPP and the IEEE groupWe currently have a couple of IoT XEPs, namely XEP-0323, XEP-0324,XEP-0325, XEP-0326 and XEP-0347. Which nearly all have been automaticallymoved to Deferred state after a year of inactivity.There is a IEEE Working Group working on an IoT standard, namelyISO/IEC/IEEE WD 21451-1-4, which make heavy use of XMPP technology, in theform of the Deferred XEPs.At the recent XMPP Summit in Brussels, Belgium, there was a clear sign thatthe way the current IoT XEPs make use of XMPP is not ideal and could beimproved by reusing existing XMPP XEPs.Ideally the IEEE WG would like to see the XEPs move on in thestandardisation process. However, in their current form this is unlikelyand it is very likely that changes are required in response to potentialLast Call for them to move forward.Whether the current XEPs are advanced, or we come up with a new XEP thatdoes things more in the XMPP way, it will require an author writing allthis up.Who would be willing to do that authoring work?2) Setting up a liaison between the XSF and the IEEE WGUp until recently, the larger XMPP community was unaware of the IEEE WG'suse of the IoT XEPs for their standard. If we knew about this situationearlier, we might have avoided the current less ideal situation.For the future, it would be ideal if we setup a liaison between the IEEE WGand the XSF, so that each side is informed about the current state andprogress of their standardisation work.Is there a person in the XSF or the XMPP community, who would be willing toact as such liaison?Please reply to the IoT list at iot@xmpp.org.Cheers,Tobi-------------- next part --------------An HTML attachment was scrubbed...------------------------------Subject: Digest Footer_______________________________________________IOT mailing list------------------------------End of IOT Digest, Vol 45, Issue 2**********************************