<<If ISO does go forward with this proposal, how do we keep them from accepting this mish-mash?>>
Good point. We only have a liaison with Working Group 5 (Security and Privacy).
This is targeted at WG7.
All we could do is point out the issue to Kantara members, who may wish to take it up with their National Body reps.
Maybe the BoT Liaison list has other ideas..
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:31:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [DG-IDoT] New Work Item proposal from CN on IoT
From: stollman.j@gmail.com
To: colin_wallis@hotmail.com
CC: dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org
Colin,
Thank you for forwarding this document.
To my mind, the proposed model is far too complex and seeks to combine logical, physical and market models that are better segregated into separate layers.
In the proposed ISO model, the domain "IoT Systems" appears to be a superset of components such as "Sensors" and "Things'Objects". How can the system and its components be equal domains in an architecture? Similarly, "Markets" appears to be a superset of components "Service Providers" and "Customers."
I believe that the proposed model is ill-conceived and lacks much input from diverse sources.
I think that the model that our DG has been working on is more likely to provide a useful reference architecture -- though we have focused primarily on the logical layer.
If ISO does go forward with this proposal, how do we keep them from accepting this mish-mash?
Jeff