editor's blog
Subscribe Now

IoT Standards: a oneM2M Follow-UP

A couple months ago I did a survey of Internet of Things (IoT) standards – or, more accurately, activities moving in the direction of standards, since it’s kind of early days yet.

And in it, I was a bit harsh with one standard… oneM2M. I found it dense and somewhat hard to penetrate, with language that didn’t seem clear or well-explained. The status at the time – and currently (for a bit longer) was as a candidate release, taking input.

To their credit, they accepted my cantankerous grumblings as input. I had a conversation with their Work Programme Management Ad-Hoc Group Chairman Nicolas Damour, at his suggestion, and we talked about some of the specific questions I had raised in my coverage. The general take-away was that the language could be made a bit more expansive for readers not from narrow domains.

Doing this can actually be tricky, since standards tend to have two kinds of content:

  • “Normative” content: this is the standard itself, the rules. It says what you “must” and “will” and ‘”shall” and “may” do. Changes to this must be well thought out and voted on. You can’t make changes willy-nilly.
  • “Informative” content: this is background material intended to give context or examples or perhaps even discuss the thinking that went into the standard: why was one approach approved over another? It’s much easier to make changes here. And if there’s any confusion between what the informative and normative sections say? The normative language always trumps.

A glossary is one good example of informative content, and we agreed that it was a reasonable place to make some clarifications. There might even be room for some glosses concerning how some tough decisions were arrived at. Overall, it was a productive conversation – showing a flexibility that’s not always a hallmark of standards organizations. (After several years of hard-fought work, it’s understandable that a group might resist a bit when outsiders propose last-minute changes… I didn’t perceive this during our talk.)

There were two specific things that I raised in my coverage.

  • One was the missing definition of a “reference point.” It turns out that, for people in the telecom world, this is a familiar term, codified by the ITU. It’s what the rest of us might call an “interface.” Problem is, the word “interface” means a lot of different things, so in ITU-land, it refers to an API or a specific physical interface. A reference point indicates an interface between systems, but in a more generic way, and one that could admit multiple protocols. Perhaps “boundary” is a better word than “interface.”
  • I questioned the definitions of “field” vs. “infrastructure” domains. In retrospect, this seems clearer: the field refers to deployed devices, and infrastructure means the Cloud or servers. The reason this seems clear now is because I’ve been specifically thinking about that with respect to “IoT Ring Theory.” Before that, it wasn’t so clear. To me, anyway.

They’re taking input through the end of the year, so you still have time to review and make suggestions. You can find the latest candidate release here (via FTP).

 

Note: there’s a page on the website with an earlier release that says that comments had to be in by Nov. 1, not by the end of the year… but I checked in, and that was for an earlier round of comments. You can still provide input. There’s also an explanatory webcast here.  

Leave a Reply

featured blogs
Jan 27, 2021
Why is my poor old noggin filled with thoughts of roaming with my friends through a post-apocalyptic dystopian metropolis ? Well, I'€™m glad you asked......
Jan 27, 2021
Here at the Cadence Academic Network, it is always important to highlight the great work being done by professors, and academia as a whole. Now that AWR software solutions is a part of Cadence, we... [[ Click on the title to access the full blog on the Cadence Community site...
Jan 27, 2021
Super-size. Add-on. Extra. More. We see terms like these a lot, whether at the drive through or shopping online. There'€™s always something else you can add to your order or put in your cart '€“ and usually at an additional cost. Fairly certain at this point most of us kn...
Jan 27, 2021
Cloud computing security starts at hyperscale data centers; learn how embedded IDE modules protect data across interfaces including PCIe 5.0 and CXL 2.0. The post Keeping Hyperscale Data Centers Safe from Security Threats appeared first on From Silicon To Software....

featured paper

Speeding Up Large-Scale EM Simulation of ICs Without Compromising Accuracy

Sponsored by Cadence Design Systems

With growing on-chip RF content, electromagnetic (EM) simulation of passives is critical — from selecting the right RF design candidates to detecting parasitic coupling. Being on-chip, accurate EM analysis requires a tie in to the process technology with process design kits (PDKs) and foundry-certified EM simulation technology. Anything short of that could compromise the RFIC’s functionality. Learn how to get the highest-in-class accuracy and 10X faster analysis.

Click here to download the whitepaper

Featured Chalk Talk

High-Performance Motor Control Solutions Through Integration

Sponsored by Mouser Electronics and Qorvo

Brushless motors have taken over the market for a huge number of applications these days. But, it’s easy to blow up your BOM cost with all the motor control and power management components required. In this episode of Chalk Talk, Amelia Dalton chats with Marc Sousa of Qorvo about the Power Application Controller (PAC) that can lower your BOM, trim down your component list, and give you several other benefits as well.

Click here for more information about Qorvo Power Application Controllers®