[LINK] RFC: It's NoT IoT
Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
Mon Jul 15 10:24:47 AEST 2019
I'm trying to compose a short para. that explains why 'IoT' is a
misnomer, and should instead be 'NoT', i.e. 'Net' not necessarily
'Internet'. (Yes, the use of 'NoT' is also a handy way of conveying a
degree of scepticism about some of the claims of IoT's proponents).
I'd appreciate the Link Institute's assessment of the following:
>The term 'IoT' is misleading.
>Although inter-connection is a defining characteristic, this does not
need to be achieved by means of the Internet – which necessarily implies
use of the Internet Protocol (IP) and either the TCP or the UDP protocol.
>In fact, many 'IoT' devices lack the capacity to achieve
Internet-connection, and some communicate with other devices using
channels and protocols that involve lower overheads than UDP/IP, such as
(Clear explanations of the relationship of Zigbee and other contenders
with the OSI and/or Internet Models' layers are surprisingly hard to
come by, but see http://www.libelium.com/802-15-4-vs-zigbee/ ).
(Note: I'm aware of 6LoPAN and the potential migration of Zigbee back
into the Internet fold and/or extension of the definition of the
Internet protocol suite beyond the TCP/IP and UDP/IP sets. I'm
intending my short para. to cover the general case of 'not-Internet',
and use the original/current form of Zigbee as an example. But maybe
there are additional, or even better, examples than Zigbee?).
Roger Clarke mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
T: +61 2 6288 6916 http://www.xamax.com.au http://www.rogerclarke.com
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law University of N.S.W.
Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University
More information about the Link