Category: Standards

  • EU Landscape report on Interoperability

    Quotes:

    The energy system is therefore progressively evolving from a system centrally operated and optimized into a federated system … As a consequence the associated digital infrastructures need to accelerate their transformation from few central monolithic control room environments … towards new orchestrated platform architectures taking advantage of IOT, edge computing as well as hybrid private and public cloud architectures where real-time data exchanges, interoperability and Open Application Programmable Interfaces have become critical technology building blocks to enable plug and play data interfaces.

    Enterprise service bus (ESB) or other integration solutions were used for the deployment of first Service Oriented architectures to decouple systems. However, the number of connectors, as well as the growing requirements for heterogeneous data consuming interfaces feeding a variety of data interfaces through real-time has led applications, system components and enterprise services to remain closely intertwined, as legacy SCADA platform vendors did not provide sufficient reengineering efforts to establish interoperability across data interfaces although the emergence the IEC CIM standards. This situation has limited the possibility to integrate platform and application from different vendors as well as expand control room platforms with modern technology stacks developed through the opensource community.

    Event streaming platforms:

    This recent transformation is progressively heading towards the migration of original Control Room platforms into new event streaming platforms leveraging events as a core integration principle and orchestrating most of energy management and control business processes around real-time data streams. This new architecture is designed in view of the event data flows while data processing is orchestrated on data while they are in motion. It has the following key benefits:

    • Event-based data flows is a foundation for (near) real-time and batch processing as required in most of flexibility management processes. In previous SOA architectures, applications were built on data stores (data at rest), which was making it impossible to build flexible and agile services to act on data very close to real-time.
    • Scalable architectures for all events shared across infinite source and sink processes. As opposed to centralised monolithic applications, the architecture is built on scalable, distributed infrastructures by design for zero downtime, handling the failure of nodes and networks while being able to roll out upgrades online. Different versions of infrastructure (like Kafka) and applications (business services) can be deployed and managed in an agile, dynamic way. This approach minimises dependencies across application which was particularly complex to manage through historical SOA architectures.
    • Openness to any kind of applications, system components and microservices. Technology does not matter. The streaming environment connects anything: programming languages, APIs like REST or MQTT, open standards, proprietary tools, and legacy applications which reduces the need to redesign existing legacy applications while benefitting from highly scalable cloud containerized environments enabling rapid prototyping of new applications. It also allows to minimize processing speed constraints for real-time control applications.
    • Distributed storage for decoupling applications. The platform data streaming environment allows to store the state of a microservice instead of requiring a separate database.
    • Stateless service and stateful business processes. Business processes typically are stateful processes. They often need to be implemented with events and state changes, for which remote procedure calls and request-response as considered through SOA architecture is not optimal.

    The solid Open Source approach deployed around Apache Kafka makes it the preferred choice…

    Link to the report

  • Digital sovereignty for Europe

    Where is EU is heading in the IoT space?

    Quotes from the PDF

    1. Europe’s ability to act independently in the digital world
    2. Reliable digital infrastructure and services are critical in today’s society
    3. There are calls to build a European cloud and data infrastructure to strengthen Europe’s data sovereignty and address the fact that today, the cloud and data storage market is almost exclusively dominated by non-European suppliers.
    4. Furthermore, investment in frontier technologies, including artificial intelligence, IoT,…
    5. In the long run, building a genuinely sovereign EU digital environment will also require addressing the current lack of coordination between regulators in this field. … Such mechanisms would be critical for instance to ensuring a coherent EU sovereign approach in many areas, such as applications management (e.g. apps or IoT devices in the data privacy field), or platform regulation.

    An open IoT platform approach is absolutely critical and will succeed in the long run.

    What EU is saying

    Rolf Riemenschneider – Head of Sector IoT at European Commission:

    Quotes:

    • 4:38 Aver the air updates
    • 5:00 Avoid Vendor lock in
    • 6:40 Support IoT – Platform approach in the centre – demonstrate orchestation across application sectors (application agnostic)
    • 7:22: So a Platform approach to enforce an open ecosystem
    • 8:00 Open Core – 8M EUR to attract Open Core Open source developers
    • 8:36: Open Calls for a vibrant IoT ecosystem
    • 8:58: Interoperability – most important. Open Interface, Open standards
    • 10:10 Lack of cross sector orchestration
    • 11:20 Data sharing (quite a challenge) – we must go back to the platform strategy/standards

    Max Lemke – Head of Unit for IoT

    Quotes:

    • 1:56 Competitiveness and Standardization are mentioned again and again in the Draghi Report
    • 2:40 Geopolitical tensions … we are either smached in the middle or we find our way … underscoring the need for unified IoT standardization in Europe
    • 3:33 By fostering collaboration and sharing we can better navigate these challenges
    • 6:01 We [must] merge things of different ownership [vendor] into a integrated infrastructure
    • 7:40 We need to look at Open Platforms … not driven by one actor
    • 8:32 It means a multi-sided market place with different actors … and standards are crutial for scalability
    • 9:00 They enable devices from different manufactures … to ensure interoperability …

  • Sensor to Cloud is only half of the way

    Machine-oriented solutions form the bulk of the interesting new areas that people talk about when discussing M2M and the IoT. Unfortunately, neither of these terms is accurate. These are machines sending readings to a central database or computer that can take action – such as sending an electricity bill or scheduling a garbage truck. This is not really “machine to machine” but rather sensor to database. This may seem to be a pedantic use of semantics but there is an important point here that there is little reason for one “machine” – for example a device such as a smart meter – to talk directly to another. Equally it is not really an Internet of Things. The Internet implies an interconnected network where one computer can access information on another computer. Instead, typically, only the “owner” of the machine, such as the electricity company, will be able to access its readings and communicate with the device. Consumers that wish to read this data will then retrieve it from a cloud-based server, not direct from the machine. It is more like the Intranet of Things” where connectivity is restricted to self-contained groups rather than the “Internet’. Again, this may seem pedantic, but it has important implications for installation, security and network architecture.

    Most applications envisaged are self-contained in that the data generated is used just for that application. So, for example, in smart metering the meters report to electricity companies or with
    parking the car park sensors talk to parking applications.

    While the original version of Metcalfe’s law stated that, the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of compatible communicating devices (n2), it did not
    specify what protocol it should run on.

    Today, many people believe that, for IoT to be a reality, all devices must run the IP protocol so that they can form an interconnected network where all devices can share and access information. Research shows that the IP protocol may not be the best fit for Internet of Things. The question is therefore: How do we make a network for PCs, servers and constrained battery-driven devices that allows for the IoT vision to be a reality.

    The requirements

    A successful IoT network architecture has the following requirements:

    1. Devices in an IoT network must be able to access and share content in near real-time
    2. Devices must be able to send content to groups of devices
    3. Content must be secured so that only authorized parties can access it
    4. Offline devices must be able to pull content from the network when they wake up
    5. Content must be accessible across different types of physical communication mediums, be it
      wired or wireless, using the same naming scheme
    6. Communication standard MUST be open and royalty-free for anyone to implement and use
    7. Transmission rate must be fast enough to support firmware updates, sub-GHz included

    Managing the devices, the data and the data-security is important for organizations deploying IoT
    networks. A successful IoT networking protocol therefore need to implement these features.
    Requirements here are:

    1. Devices and security must be centrally managed
    2. Being able to centrally manage what device sends content and which receives that content

    The rapid growth in Internet of Things (IoT) deployment has posed unprecedented challenges to the underlying network design. Tomorrow’s global-scale IoT systems will focus on service-oriented data sharing and processing rather than point-to-point data collection. Requirements such as global reachability, mobility, communication diversity, and security will also develop naturally along with the change in the communication patterns. However, existing (IP-based)networks focus only on locations and point-to-point channels. The mismatch between the dynamic requirements and the functionalities provided by the network renders IoT communication inefficient and inconvenient.

  • Cellular Non-IP Networking (NIN)

    Telecom IoT-customers has found out that sending a 4-byte floating-point value using MQTT, has an overhead of 702 bytes:

    https://docs.devicewise.com/Content/Products/IoT_Portal_API_Reference_Guide/MQTT_Interface/MQTT-data-usage.htm

    Therefore, the telecoms and standards organisations has come up with Cellular Non-IP Networking. (1NCE has even made their own OS to solve this problem!):

    https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-026-12jul21-en.pdf

    Similarly to the Huawei New IP proposal, the starting point of ETSI NIN ISG is the claim that TCP/IP is an old protocol, unsuitable for the new types of applications promised by 5G…

    and

    The initial assumption of this effort is that the TCP/IP protocol suite, now 40 years old, is no longer suitable for modern networking.

  • Interoperability is the devil

    40% of the total economic value of the Industrial IoT will remain locked

    In any interconnected system, all of its component devices must be able to communicate with each other—to speak in the same language, even if these devices work in very different fields. A lack of common software interfaces, standard data formats, and common connectivity protocols are complicating things in IoT-land. For industries, this means that 40% of the total economic value of the Industrial IoT will remain locked because different systems cannot work together.

    Source: Madison.tech

    Standardization creates interoperability

    The lack of standardization creates interoperability issues, which can lead to compatibility problems and limited functionality.

    For example, if two IoT devices cannot communicate with each other because they use different protocols or data formats, they cannot work together to achieve a common goal.

    Source: LinkedIn

  • IETF believes in ICN for IoT

    Internet Ingineering Task Force (IETF), the group that governs the Internet Standards (RFCs), believes that Information-Centric Networking (ICN) is much better suited to IoT than the current host based paradigms such as TCP/IP. Here are their findings:

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-icniot-03

  • Why is patented infrastructure a problem?

    Patented infrastructure is a problem because it can limit access, stifle competition, increase costs, reduce interoperability, and create dependence on a single entity, ultimately hindering innovation and progress.

    1. Limited access: When infrastructure is patented, it can limit access to the technology and prevent others from using it, even if they have a legitimate need to do so.
    2. High costs: Patent holders can charge high licensing fees to use their patented technology, which can make it difficult for others to access the infrastructure.
    3. Innovation stifling: Patented infrastructure can stifle innovation by preventing others from building upon or improving the existing technology.
    4. Dependence on a single entity: When infrastructure is patented, it can create a dependence on a single entity, which can be a risk if the entity experiences financial difficulties or changes its business model.
    5. Limited interoperability: Patented infrastructure can limit interoperability with other technologies and systems, making it difficult to integrate with other solutions.
    6. Barriers to entry: Patented infrastructure can create barriers to entry for new companies or individuals who want to enter the market, as they may not be able to access the patented technology.
    7. Inequitable distribution of benefits: Patented infrastructure can lead to an inequitable distribution of benefits, as the patent holder may reap most of the benefits while others may not be able to access the technology.

    In the context of infrastructure, patents can be particularly problematic because they can limit access to essential technologies and create barriers to entry for new companies or individuals. This can lead to a lack of competition, innovation, and progress in the field.

    In contrast, open standards and technologies can promote innovation, competition, and progress by allowing multiple companies and individuals to access and build upon the technology.

    Quoting the Linux Foundation report “The 2023 state of open standards”:

    Royalties and patent licenses are seen as a way for organizations to recoup investment costs in developing new technologies and are argued to provide incentives for innovation. In practice, however, this approach can reduce innovation in the market when these fees are cost-prohibitive to new entrants and viable alternatives to the incumbent, royalty-bearing standards are not available.
    Therefore, Royalty Free essential patent licensing standard options are seen as an important way to ensure competitive, democratic access to innovation, greatly reducing the risk of an organization monopolizing the market or controlling access to important market technology.

    Non-royalty free wireless communication standards:

    • WiFi
    • Bluetooth
    • Zigbee
    • Matter / Thread
    • LoRa

    Royalty free wireless communication standards:

    • Z-Mesh
    • FSK / OOK / BPSK
    • Wireless M-Bus

  • IoT is infrastructure

    IoT (Internet of Things) is considered infrastructure because it provides a foundation for the development of various applications and services that can be used by individuals, businesses, and governments. Just like roads, bridges, and highways provide a physical infrastructure for transportation, IoT provides a digital infrastructure for the exchange of data and information between devices, sensors, and systems.

    IoT infrastructure includes:

    • Devices: Sensors, actuators, and other devices that collect and transmit data.
    • Networks: Wireless and wired networks that connect devices and sensors.
    • IoT Platforms: Software platforms that manage encryption keys, data-flows, devices and sensors.

    Just like physical infrastructure, IoT infrastructure requires investment, maintenance, and management to ensure its reliability, security, and efficiency.

    IoT (Internet of Things) can be compared to infrastructure in several ways:

    1. Enabling connectivity: Just like roads, bridges, and highways enable the movement of people and goods, IoT enables the connection of devices, sensors, and systems to the internet, facilitating the exchange of data and information.
    2. Providing a foundation: Infrastructure provides a foundation for economic growth, development, and innovation. Similarly, IoT provides a foundation for the development of smart cities, industries, and services.
    3. Facilitating communication: Infrastructure enables communication between people, businesses, and governments. IoT facilitates communication between devices, sensors, and systems, enabling real-time data exchange and decision-making.
    4. Enabling efficiency and productivity: Infrastructure can improve efficiency and productivity by reducing congestion, improving logistics, and enhancing supply chain management. IoT can also improve efficiency and productivity by automating processes, optimizing resource allocation, and enhancing decision-making.
    5. Scalability: IoT, like infrastructure, needs to be scalable to accommodate growing demands and evolving needs. As the number of IoT devices and the complexity of the systems they operate in increase, the infrastructure supporting IoT must also scale accordingly.
    6. Requiring maintenance and management: Infrastructure requires regular maintenance and management to ensure its continued functionality and efficiency. IoT also requires maintenance and management to ensure the security, reliability, and performance of connected devices and systems.

  • The problem with LoRa being patented

    The main problem with Semtech’s LoRa technology being patented is the potential for it to create a monopolistic situation and limit competition in the low-power wide-area network (LPWAN) market.

    Here are some of the key issues with the LoRa patent:

    1. Proprietary technology:
      • LoRa is a proprietary technology owned and controlled by Semtech Corporation.
      • This means Semtech has the exclusive rights to the LoRa technology and can dictate the terms and conditions for its use.
    2. Licensing fees and royalties:
      • Companies that want to use LoRa technology in their products or services have to pay licensing fees and royalties to Semtech.
      • This can increase the cost of LoRa-based solutions and make it harder for smaller players to enter the market.
    3. Lack of open standards:
      • LoRa is not an open standard, unlike some other LPWAN technologies like Sigfox or NB-IoT.
      • Open standards allow for more competition, innovation, and interoperability between different vendors and solutions.
    4. Vendor lock-in:
      • The proprietary nature of LoRa can lead to vendor lock-in, where customers become dependent on Semtech and have limited options to switch to alternative technologies.
    5. Potential for abuse of market position:
      • As the sole owner of the LoRa technology, Semtech could potentially abuse its market position by setting high licensing fees, restricting access, or favoring certain partners over others.
    6. Slower adoption and innovation:
      • The proprietary nature of LoRa may slow down the adoption and innovation in the LPWAN market, as companies may be hesitant to invest in a technology with a single point of control.

    To address these concerns, some industry groups and organizations have been advocating for the development of open, royalty-free LPWAN standards that can foster more competition and innovation in the IoT market. This could help to mitigate the drawbacks of Semtech’s patented LoRa technology.

    In the context of IoT, where interoperability and open standards are crucial, the patenting of LoRa is particularly problematic because it is hindering the growth of IoT. Also, experts argue that patents can actually hinder innovation, rather than promote it. They argue that patents can create a “patent thicket” that makes it difficult for others to innovate, as they may need to navigate a complex web of patents and licensing agreements.

    The EU wants to create an IoT platform in which all vendors can make products on equal terms for several reasons:

    1. Promoting competition: By creating an open platform, the EU aims to promote competition among vendors, which can lead to better products, lower prices, and more innovation.
    2. Encouraging innovation: An open platform can encourage innovation by allowing multiple vendors to develop products and services that can interoperate with each other.
    3. Reducing vendor lock-in: By creating an open platform, the EU aims to reduce vendor lock-in, which can limit the ability of customers to switch between vendors or use products from different vendors.
    4. Improving interoperability: An open platform can improve interoperability between different products and services, which can make it easier for customers to use products from different vendors.
    5. Enhancing security: An open platform can enhance security by allowing multiple vendors to develop products and services that can interoperate with each other, which can make it more difficult for hackers to exploit vulnerabilities.
    6. Supporting the development of the IoT ecosystem: By creating an open platform, the EU aims to support the development of the IoT ecosystem, which can lead to the creation of new products, services, and business models.
    7. Reducing dependence on a single vendor: By creating an open platform, the EU aims to reduce dependence on a single vendor, which can make it more difficult for a single vendor to dominate the market and limit competition.

    Overall, the EU’s goal is to create an IoT platform that is open, interoperable, and secure, and that allows multiple vendors to develop products and services on equal terms. This can help to promote competition, innovation, and the development of the IoT ecosystem, while also reducing vendor lock-in and dependence on a single vendor.

  • Interoperability and Open Standard

    The open standard, Z-Mesh, is crucial IoT for several reasons:

    1. Interoperability: An open standard ensures that devices from different manufacturers can communicate with each other seamlessly, which is essential for IoT applications.
    2. Scalability: An open standard allows for the development of a large number of devices and applications, which is necessary for the widespread adoption of IoT.
    3. Innovation: An open standard encourages innovation by allowing developers to create new applications and devices without being limited by proprietary technologies.
    4. Security: An open standard can help to ensure the security of IoT devices and applications by providing a common framework for security protocols and procedures.
    5. Cost-effectiveness: An open standard can help to reduce the cost of IoT devices and applications by allowing manufacturers to develop devices that are compatible with a wide range of systems and applications.
    6. Flexibility: An open standard provides flexibility in the development of IoT devices and applications, allowing developers to choose the best technologies and protocols for their specific needs.
    7. Avoidance of vendor lock-in: An open standard helps to avoid vendor lock-in, which can limit the ability of users to switch between different devices and applications.
    8. Promoting competition: An open standard promotes competition among manufacturers, which can lead to better products and services.
    9. Enabling new business models: An open standard can enable new business models, such as device-as-a-service, which can provide new revenue streams for manufacturers.
    10. Improving user experience: An open standard can improve the user experience by providing a consistent and seamless experience across different devices and applications.

    Citing the paper Internet of Things for Smart Cities: Interoperability and Open Data:

    https://cloud.aernetworks.com/s/4STReMBdYET96rr

    Quote

    Interoperability and Open Standard Development
    With the popularity of IoT devices, many IoT protocols and standards have been developed. In contrast to ordinary computers, IoT devices are normally constrained when it comes to memory space and processing capacity. In addition, IoT devices might be deployed where there’s limited or no access to continuous power supply, which means that they need to operate under power supplied from batteries or small solar panels. As a consequence, power-efficient communication protocols with small memory footprints and limited demands on processing have been developed to support IoT devices. Traditional TCP/IP protocols haven’t been designed with these requirements in mind.
    …
    Standard protocols are important to guarantee interoperability of different IoT devices.
    However, using open standards doesn’t automatically result in open systems. In our context, an open system means an integrated open IoT infrastructure solution for smart cities, providing access to open data and APIs for cloud services. In many cities, that infrastructure will be paid for, at least in part, by the city authorities using public funding. To motivate this investment, and get the most benefit for society, we argue that any smart city IoT infrastructure needs to be a truly open system, where equipment from many vendors can be used, and where the generated data can be more or less freely used by anyone to develop new services, based on low-level as well as processed sensor and IoT data. This kind of system will maximize innovation in the IoT domain, much as the Internet has done for information and communication services. Many current IoT systems — for example, for air quality monitoring or the smart home — are either incomplete systems with limited functionalities (that is, in terms of sensing, storage, and analytics), or are closed, proprietary systems dedicated for a particular task. The latter are vertically integrated systems, sometimes called stove pipes or vertical silos, which can’t be combined or extended easily with third-party components or services. The result is that once invested in a particular system, you’re locked into that vendor’s system. Vertically integrated systems are particularly problematic for the public sector, because this prevents fair competition in public procurement and is less suitable for large-scale data sharing.
    Patrik Fältström (7) argues similarly that market forces work against open interoperability, specially in the IoT domain where, for example, a smart lighting system from one vendor only works with light bulbs from the same vendor. Systems are designed as end-to-cloud-to-end, where the cloud part is vendor-controlled with limited possibilities for third parties, and where the IoT devices often speak proprietary protocols to the cloud. Fältström argues that this lack of interoperability severely limits the market growth (for example, with smart light bulbs). Also, the dependence on a cloud service might render the device non-functional, should that cloud service for any reason, temporarily or permanently, disappear.
    Instead of these stove pipes, we need horizontally designed systems with well-defined interfaces and data formats that can unleash the potential of open data, and that enable third parties to independently develop new applications and services, possibly combining several data sources. Providing open data has huge potential for innovation in digital applications and services, resulting in very large economic values. These interfaces (APIs) through which the IoT data can be accessed at multiple levels of refinement — from raw data directly from sensors, to highly processed data — also need standardization. The challenge is to provide an open system that lets users access the open data and cloud services without being locked by a particular platform. The open system should also allow third-parties to innovate based on the open data and open APIs.