Re: [m2m-iwg] M2M Top-Level Project Charter Draft

["Ian Skerrett" <ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I realize I might be a bit late but I’d like to comment on the naming of the top level project.

 

IMHO, the terms m2m and IoT are inter-changeable. Lots of vendors, press and analysts will use both terms. Some will try to provide a definition but I don’t know of any that has been accepted. Cisco is also using the term Internet of Everything just to add to the confusion.

 

I also think have two different names for the working group and the top-level project would just create a lot of confusion. The other working groups at Eclipse, Polarsys and LocationTech, use the same name since it seems to make a lot of sense. We also have spent the last year plus using the Eclipse M2M name so it would be disappointing to weaken that effort.

 

Based on this, I would encourage us to call the top-level project Eclipse M2M. I know it is not perfect but no name will be perfect.

 

Thanks

Ian

 

From: m2m-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:m2m-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Benjamin Cabé
Sent: July-03-13 3:54 PM
To: m2m Industry Working Group
Subject: Re: [m2m-iwg] M2M Top-Level Project Charter Draft

 

Hi Kai,

 

I quite like the charter! And I have a VERY boring suggestion for the naming: Eclipse IoT :-)

 

Does not look boring to me! I have added that to the list of proposed names in the wiki page.

 

I know, a big buzzword and its hype might be over one day, but at the moment I would actually see it as the most descriptive and appropriate, so I wanted to throw it into the discussion.

 

Yes, that would be my concern neither M2M nor IoT will be hype forever, so this why I also like the idea of trying to find a hype-proof name :) But FWIW if I were to choose between "M2M" and "IoT", my vote would probably go to "IoT".

 

In the scope section you write:

§  "Implementation of communication protocols applicable to M2M communications due to their nature (bandwidth efficiency, security, …)"

Looking from the Home Automation perspective, I think this is a too narrow scope. For HA, the M2M communication part is not so important, but rather the protocol that is used to communicate with different gateways. Just to give you an example: For the EnOcean protocol (see http://www.enocean.com/en/energy-harvesting-wireless/), it is not so interesting to understand what goes over the radio (what is very constrained), but how to communicate with the usb radio stick over the serial interface. So I think the protocol scope would actually boil down to "Implementation of communication protocols".

 

You are right. I have reworded to "Protocols implementations that can easily be consumed by end solution developers as well as framework developers". Maybe it still can be improved to somehow limit the scope to M2M/IoT protocols (e.g. I don't think we want HTTP or SMTP implementations… :-) )  

 

Open question would be: Which OSI layers would be in scope here? Is 4-7 enough or would you also see layers 1-3 in the scope?

 

Do you have specific protocols in mind? 

I am not sure there would be a justification to formally limiting the scope to just layer 4 and above. What do you think?

 

Benjamin.