3 ms·
And then there were N+1 competing protocols... Bureaucracies and committees are good at developing protocol specifications. Instead of throwing spaghetti at th
by agentultra 12y ago
And then there were N+1 competing protocols...
Bureaucracies and committees are good at developing protocol specifications. Instead of throwing spaghetti at the wall maybe those of us interested in pervasive network computing should get an ANSI committee (or IETF-like task force) together to develop the de-facto standard language.
I don't want to have to build out an API in front of my cluster that speaks every possible permutation of language from every device and sensor. As a hardware vendor I wouldn't want to lock myself out of an ecosystem because my device only speaks a particular language that only a portion of the cloud speaks (or may become obsolete in a few years).
It's nice that this stuff is happening... but a Cambrian explosion of protocols isn't going to make the IoT very robust, IMHO.
- bravo22 12y agoI prefer IETF CoAp standard. Look it up. Much better I think.
- jchrisa 12y agoCoAP is very compelling, here is the spec: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252 Cool that it maps to HTTP / REST so you can proxy it to the web. All the tricks it gets from UDP + TURN ICE STUN are p2p friendly.
- agentultra 12y agoThanks, I will definitely look into this.
- jamesbritt 12y agoSame here. Feels like a mix of OSC (Open Sound Control) and HTTP. As with OSC it runs over UDP, which is handy for low-pwoer devices and/or constrained bandwidth. However, also as with OSC, you can use TCP for CoAP if need be.
- middleca 12y ago+1 for CoAP - We use it!
- bravo22 12y agoI'm guessing you're from Spark Devices?