Re: [m2m-iwg] AXEDA Comments on MQTT contribution to ECLIPSE PAHO & OASI

[Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@xxxxxxxxx>]

2013/1/28 andypiperuk@xxxxxxxxx <andypiperuk@xxxxxxxxx>

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Rick Bullotta <rick.bullotta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:and on capabilities that would greatly improve interoperability and integration:

-          Stronger typing and metadata for payloads

-          Semantics for data, events, services, blob/file and stream content (all essential for a modern M2M platform)

These two I very strongly disagree with codifying as part of the protocol itself. I think one of the benefits of MQTT is that it is agnostic of the data layer, and only deals with the transport. Personally, I agree that we should think about data formats for M2M events etc, but that this is part of what the M2M IWG is intended to consider rather than something that's appropriate in the protocol - as I often say, it's a deliberately simple tool which you can use in a variety of ways. 

Being agnostic to the data layer is different than including a description of the format of the data being transmitted.

It might be needed for a lot of use cases, e.g. to upgrade the data format over time.

I'm thinking at something like the Content-Type header of HTTP.

Otherwise, that information will end being encoded in the topic name, or in a standardized payload format.

-          Standardizing a REST API model

Arlen Nipper was looking at this as part of the IWG activities.

 May I contribute in some way?

Thanks,

Matteo