Thank you Oleg for this complete response! I agree with you about IETF protocols, everybody should use them and it will make communication easier. Concerning IoTBase, I would add that they're thinking about a stack for constrained devices [1] so it might be easier to implement on RIOT. As you said, Riot nodes will be connected to something more powerful but this kind of protocol avoids to create new proprietary protocols. Let's wait a bit more for Thread, they should come up with something useful and not too expensive hopefully.
I found this link on stackoverflow where they compare AllJoyn and IoTivity.[2] Cheers, [1] https://www.iotivity.org/documentation/linux/programmers-guide [2] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/27947856/iotivity-vs-alljoyn-what-is-the-difference 2015-03-19 12:08 GMT+01:00 Oleg Hahm <oliver.h...@inria.fr>: > Hi Baptiste! > > > This question is not particularly about Riot but it makes sense to ask > you > > since future Riot device might use one of this high level protocol > > (Iotivity, AllJoyn, Thread, Ipso Alliance). > > What do you think about them? In your opinion, which one will be mostly > > used? > > To be honest, to me most of these alliance and consortia have the > disadvantage > of being very blurry and vague about the concrete techniques and protocols. > I haven't heard of Iotivity before and looking at their web page, it seems > that they're mostly targeting bigger devices than we do usually in the RIOT > ecosystem. Same goes for AllJoyn as far as I can see. Real constrained IoT > devices are expected to connect to something more powerful to integrate > them > into the Internet. That seems to be exactly this type of silo solution most > RIOT developers don't believe to be helpful on the long run. > > For Thread, it's really hard to tell at the moment, since there's no > specification and everything's happening behind closed doors, which are to > expensive to open - except you're a global player with some money. From the > technologies and protocol suites they mention and from the people that I > know > who are involved there, it sounds rather reasonable and I hope that they > will > come up with something more useful than ZigBee, but I still don't > understand > the need for yet another protocol stack. > > To me IPSO alliance seems to be the most natural choice, since they are not > proposing their own (silo) solution, but build on existing standards, > mostly > from IETF. > > > Is there any future developments planned on RIOT? > > Well, first of all, I have to say that most of the original RIOT core team > are > either network or system guys. Means, real applications and working on high > level protocols, was out of scope in the beginning. Fortunately, over time > and > as the RIOT community grew this changed and people started to work on > several > upper layer solutions. However, I think it's not yet clear if there will be > the one go-to solution or - what sounds more probable to me - several high > layer protocols tailored for different use cases. Hence, I think (and > hope) we > will have several solutions in RIOT over the next years. > > Personally, I'm a strong believer in open standards and therefore I prefer > IETF protocols wherever possible. > > Cheers, > Oleg > -- > fs_dprintk (FS_DEBUG_INIT, "Ha! Initialized OK!\n"); > linux-2.6.6/drivers/atm/firestream.c > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@riot-os.org > http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > -- *Clenet BaptisteFR: +33 6 29 73 05 39*
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
