I'm trying to compose a short para. that explains why 'IoT' is a
misnomer, and should instead be 'NoT', i.e. 'Net' not necessarily
'Internet'. (Yes, the use of 'NoT' is also a handy way of conveying a
degree of scepticism about some of the claims of IoT's proponents).
I'd appreciate the Link Institute's assessment of the following:
>The term 'IoT' is misleading.
>
>Although inter-connection is a defining characteristic, this does not
need to be achieved by means of the Internet – which necessarily implies
use of the Internet Protocol (IP) and either the TCP or the UDP protocol.
>
>In fact, many 'IoT' devices lack the capacity to achieve
Internet-connection, and some communicate with other devices using
channels and protocols that involve lower overheads than UDP/IP, such as
Zigbee.
(Clear explanations of the relationship of Zigbee and other contenders
with the OSI and/or Internet Models' layers are surprisingly hard to
come by, but see http://www.libelium.com/802-15-4-vs-zigbee/ ).
(Note: I'm aware of 6LoPAN and the potential migration of Zigbee back
into the Internet fold and/or extension of the definition of the
Internet protocol suite beyond the TCP/IP and UDP/IP sets. I'm
intending my short para. to cover the general case of 'not-Internet',
and use the original/current form of Zigbee as an example. But maybe
there are additional, or even better, examples than Zigbee?).
--
Roger Clarke mailto:[email protected]
T: +61 2 6288 6916 http://www.xamax.com.au http://www.rogerclarke.com
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law University of N.S.W.
Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
