Hello all, This list is quite impressive, but at first glance, I'm asking myself if the X.500 naming space mechanism can not be used (or at least considered) in such a case? But maybe have you already considered it during the F2F meeting ? Regards, -- Benoît Bailleux Orange Labs, P&S / Architecture — Security — Enablers Open Source referent Phone: +33 2 96 05 20 37 Le 28/05/2014 12:25, Ingo.Friese@telekom.de a écrit :
Dear All,
During our face2face meeting we discussed a possible Object Name Service or Object Registry. (see: http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/IDoT/Minutes+of+the+1st+F2F+...)
As discussed we wanted to have a look at following technologies:
- GS1 (incl. the step back of France because of privacy Issues with Neustar)
- XRI as a syntax allowing for putting different name spaces in one syntax (now maintained in XDI)
- A static namespace like RFC 4350 (New Zealand URN) describing how to construct a namespace
- DNS – Why is DNS not sufficient for IoT
- “WhoIs” lookup
- IETF Web link according to RFC 5988
- Why is IPv6 alone not sufficient
- Is there a role for Ontologies
- Resolution/indirection (first step e.g. results in personal cloud / a second step accesses the personal cloud …incl access control)
- What about SNMP/ MIB (remark added afterwards)
Now I’m looking for volunteers taking care of one of these technologies/approaches. I’d like to suggest to write down
1) what the technology is about and then 2) to elaborate on advantages and disadvantages regarding an object registry
So if you think one or more of the points are interesting for you just let me know. We can also discuss details in our tomorrows ConfCall!
Looking forward to you feedback!
Best regards,
Ingo