[IOT] An implementer's review of the IoT XEPs

CONZON DAVIDE conzon at ismb.it
Sun Dec 18 22:16:26 UTC 2016

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 21:47:17 +0100
  Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:

> I don't think that XMPP has an inherent overhead besides 
> it being XML
> based. And that overhead can likely be heavily reduced 
> by EXI and the like.
> The main problem, and that is not specific to XMPP, is 
> bad protocol
> design which imposes unnecessary packets (in XMPPs' 
> case: stanzas) on
> the wire.

Probably also the point that you have indicated needs to 
be addressed, but for my personal experience,
what people is indicating generally as one of the main 
issues of XMPP compared with other IoT protocols
is related to the use of XML. But I agree that this issue 
can be addressed with the integration of EXI
like proposed in XEP-0322.

> Of course. No one is talking about forbidding it. But 
> symmetric presence
> subscription should not be be *required*. And I think we 
> should design
> the XMPP IoT protocol(s) based on that assumption.

Totally agree.
> Could you elaborate on those?

Sure, I think that the presence mechanism is one of the 
most important feature that XMPP can provide
in the IoT scenario. If every "Thing" is associated with a 
XMPP JID, its presence can be used to know in
real-time if it is online or not and possibly more 
specific info, using the status.
As I said, this feature can be useful in several scenario:
- smart-factory, where the presences can be used to keep 
monitored the devices in one ore more industrial plants,
- smart-home, where the same feature can be used for the 
equiments and sensors deployed in an home.
- smart city, where this feature can be used to monitor 
the status of smart objects spread in the city scenario.

More in general, every time can be useful to know in 
real-time if one device (or virtual entity) is available 
or not and take a decision based on this information.

I hope I made myself clear,
Best Regards,

More information about the IOT mailing list