[Standards] Status of XEP-xxxx: Sensor-over-XMPP
Peter.Waher at clayster.com
Mon Dec 17 16:54:39 UTC 2012
I'm sorry to see I missed your mail. Could you mail me this again? (Also to peterwaher at hotmail.com). Perhaps it got lost in an e-mail filter, which seems to happen a lot unfortunately :(, both ways.
Regarding HTTP: We're not using HTTP a lot in our sensor communication yet, mostly in research projects. However, we're also pushing for web 3.0 technology, i.e. sensor data using semantic web technologies, which is mainly (but not necessarily) based on HTTP(S). We believe this to be the future of IoT also. If we could intermarry XMPP & web 3.0 technologies, would be great, and is one of my hopes/goals to achieve within the XSF. (However, it would require multiple XEP's.)
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:hannes.tschofenig at gmx.net]
Sent: den 17 december 2012 12:54
To: XMPP Standards
Cc: marioberges at cmu.edu; iot at xmpp.org; Joachim Lindborg (joachim.lindborg at sust.se); gauravbhatia at cmu.edu; agr at ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: [Standards] Status of XEP-xxxx: Sensor-over-XMPP
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.
On Dec 17, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> On 17 December 2012 12:35, Peter Waher <Peter.Waher at clayster.com> wrote:
>> I'm writing to you to, to ask about the status of the following document:
>> 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:
> Nathan posted his reasoning here:
> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2011-May/024545.html - and
> the discussion continued here:
> 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
More information about the Standards