[Standards] IOT-Events

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Mon Nov 10 14:33:54 UTC 2014


[Sending a few mails to try to rekindle this discussion]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Joachim Lindborg
<joachim.lindborg at sust.se> wrote:
> I agree in the need for multiple subscriptions. I have that in several
> usecases.

OK, thanks.

>  I would also adress the "keep it simple need" the xep 323 is very easy to
> use and the need for events for small sensors are essential to prevent
> extensive polling.
> Demanding pubsub and forms notation to the devices adds a lot of complexity
> to the implementor of the sensor implementor.
>
> I could almost argue that the <subscription> stanza should be added to the
> xep 323 for simplicity but a see the need for a separate namespace and
> perhaps other usecases

It's not clear to me exactly how big an issue this is. I stress that I
am not suggesting that IoT devices should need to have a full xep60
implementation (if such a thing exists), but rather just that the
syntax (and where possible semantics) can be sensibly reused. I'm not
suggesting, for example, that there needs to be a full xep4
implementation in the clients allowing them to deal with arbitrary
fields (if this is not necessary), just a different representation of
the semantics presented by the iot-events proposal so as to have more
consistency between IoT XMPP and non-IoT XMPP. I think we should avoid
having two ecosystems of IoT and non-IoT XMPP, and just have "XMPP".

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list