Another comment to the EETimes latest article on the Internet of Things – “IoT Terrain Still Shifting“:

Rick: Another great article on the IoT – thanks. And this one was especially thought provoking as in my opinion two of the more important issues surfaced here.

First, what caught my eye was when you opened with “Competing platforms are still evolving and pathways to interoperability between them need to be built…” Which got me thinking about how the vendors are all racing to the table with solutions – complicating the landscape – when it should be the individual industries collaborating to drive their requirements back to the vendors. This appears to be another classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

Second, Transport – WiFi, 4G, whatever – is of at best a tertiary issue as the transport solution(s) should be driven from the customer/industry requirement space. Note: Some of the IoT, e.g. sensors and controllers in all/part of the electrical grid should be airgapped. That data doesn’t belong in the cloud nor should their control systems be accessable from a smartphone.

Lastly, just like how the US goverment has separated public infrastructure into 16 different classes for security reasons, adds to the argument that the whole IoT space can also be parsed into classes (and sub-classes) bound by theĀ specificities of their requirements.

For example at the very simpliest: we could view the IoT as comprising of three major classes: consumer, business, and industrial. Then for each class (and sub-class) break down the pieces into their constituent moving parts. Then articulate their security, transport, processing, and storage requirements.

A modular, sensible, and logical classification scheme for the IoT would go a long ways towards simplifying the landscape.

PS – I archive comments such as these to this blog because if I don’t collect them in a space of my own I worry that they’ll get lost.

Advertisements