3 ms·

Things connected to the internet should expose an API defining what they are, what they do, and what they need to perform their magic, so consumers can act acco

by Thiz 12y ago

Things connected to the internet should expose an API defining what they are, what they do, and what they need to perform their magic, so consumers can act accordingly. name: thermostat task: control room temperature icon: [base64] functions: - turn on - turn off - set temperature (temp:num) With that information my cell phone can interact with all the things around it. If I click on the thermostat icon I get the info shown and three butons with the actions I can perform on it. If I want to control the temperature I just enter a number and done. If a TV is around, I can easily turn it on/off, switch channels, volume, etc. No need for specialized apps, they're universal APIs every device can access, provided some level of security or trust. Is that the IoT we want?

bradfa 12y ago
Basically, yes. But how do you authenticate that the thing telling the TV to turn off actually has the authority to tell it to turn off? This is a whole nother level of complexity which consumers will need to navigate after the API for all the things are standardized and many companies are going to screw up the security way worse than they are currently screwing up the interoperability. The real problem with IoT isn't the standardization of the transfer medium, it's the security implications of having your things on an internet.
bergie 12y ago
That is actually pretty close to how we define components in the FBP protocol. You'll just want to add a bit more information about the inputs, and a possible set of outputs too (for example, a temperature reading?) http://noflojs.org/documentation/protocol/#component http://noflojs.org/documentation/protocol/#component For IoT use the default WebSocket transport isn't desirable, of course. But maybe something like MQTT? A subset of the protocol already works with serial-over-USB when talking to microcontrollers

by Thiz 12y ago

bradfa 12y ago

Basically, yes. But how do you authenticate that the thing telling the TV to turn off actually has the authority to tell it to turn off? This is a whole nother level of complexity which consumers will need to navigate after the API for all the things are standardized and many companies are going to screw up the security way worse than they are currently screwing up the interoperability. The real problem with IoT isn't the standardization of the transfer medium, it's the security implications of having your things on an internet.

bergie 12y ago

That is actually pretty close to how we define components in the FBP protocol. You'll just want to add a bit more information about the inputs, and a possible set of outputs too (for example, a temperature reading?) http://noflojs.org/documentation/protocol/#component http://noflojs.org/documentation/protocol/#component For IoT use the default WebSocket transport isn't desirable, of course. But maybe something like MQTT? A subset of the protocol already works with serial-over-USB when talking to microcontrollers