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
Mar 20, 2019
Over the past few years, 3D modeling capabilites on Samtec.com have progressed immensely. We’ve gone from a small library of static files to a massive library of dynamically generated models, that can be downloaded as virtually any file type, in just a few seconds. Thou...
Mar 20, 2019
One big highlight of the RSA conference is always The Cryptographers' Panel. This year the panel was: Ronald Rivest, the R of RSA. Whitfield Diffie, legendary cryptographer. Paul Kocher, who... [[ Click on the title to access the full blog on the Cadence Community site....
Mar 19, 2019
Deeper Dive into Non-Trivial Bug Escapes and Safety Critical Designs This blog is a continuation of a series of blogs related to the 2018 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study (click here).  In my previous blog (click here), I presented verification results fin...
Jan 25, 2019
Let'€™s face it: We'€™re addicted to SRAM. It'€™s big, it'€™s power-hungry, but it'€™s fast. And no matter how much we complain about it, we still use it. Because we don'€™t have anything better in the mainstream yet. We'€™ve looked at attempts to improve conven...