[Fiware-iot] Comments on Features linked to GEs in the IoT Chapter

[Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)]

Dear Juanjo,


We believe we covered all your points, please see inline.

 

Thanks & Br,

 

Lorant

 

 

From: ext Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:28 AM
To: 'Thierry.nagellen at orange-ftgroup.com'; Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest); Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest)
Cc: Miguel Carrillo; jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro"
Subject: Comments on Features linked to GEs in the IoT Chapter

 

 

Dear Thierry, Lorant, Denes,

  Please find my comments regarding revision/addition of Features linked to GEs in the IoT Chapter.   If there is anything you disagree with and wish to discuss, I'm happy to.

  Cheers,

-- Juanjo


1. General Comments

  Please check the General Comments for all chapters that have been sent.   Several of those comments apply to your chapter.   We will try to point here where they specifically apply to your chapter but don't miss to carry out a revision yourself.

Does not apply, as discussed in the IoT weekly meeting.



2. Backend Device Management GE

  Pretty good work.   Congratulations !

  Just a typo in the description of FIWARE.Feature.IoT.Backend.DeviceManagement.DisconnectedDeviceManagement <https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FIWARE.Feature.IoT.Backend.DeviceManagement.DisconnectedDeviceManagement>  where it is said "The FI-WARE Instance providers also needs" where one 's' or the other should be dropped (seems like the first one).   Maybe also in this same Feature, it would be appropriate to move the text "The FI-WARE Instance providers also needs the system to automatically reconnect devices/IoT gateways with an optimal scheduling/a scheduling set by myself/scheduling depending on other factors (e.g. availability of an access network)" as part of the description so that the Goal gets shorter (you may consider replacing the mentioned text by ", handling automatic reconnection" in the goal itself.  Just a suggestion.

Both issues corrected.



  One thing I don't understand very well is why you have the Feature regarding CEP support ... Why should the Backend Device Management GE support CEP capabilities ?   
Removed, as we discussed in the IoT weekly meeting.


  It's nice that you have add the last Feature regarding NGSI-based interface to the Things Management GE


3. Backend Things Management GE

  For obvious reasons, I don't have any particular comment at this point (you know it took several interactions until we got it, thanks to NEC for this collaborative effort)
No issue here.



4. Backend Advanced Connectivity GE

  My understanding is that this GE goes for the second release.   Because of that, the degree of development reached is fine to me.   The fact that there are more Epics than Features sounds reasonably to me at this point in the project (I wonder even whether the identified Features are functions we feel confident can be addressed in the course of a minor Release (3 months long)
No issue here.


5. Backend Template Handler GE 

  Similar comments like with the previous GE.   Just a minor comment.  Descriptions linked to Features refer to "Epics" ... probably this was because you translated some Epics into Features.    Changing this is not that critical (we have always mentioned that Features were like a kind of Epic that is enough well defined as to feel confident it may take a minor Release, i.e. 3 months, to develop it.
Corrected (3 entries).



6. Gateway Device Management GE 

  Maybe the description a bit short but clear enough compared to Features linked to another GEs, but overall it's fine.

  One thing that it is unclear to me is to what extend all the features are supported no matther whether the northbound interface is an ETSI M2M interface or not (e.g., an IETF Core interface) ...  Could you elaborate on the matter ?   Maybe it is worth to add some Feature regarding northbound interface that will be supported by this GE ...
Added 2 northbound features, clarified in the meeting that the rest is generic.



7.  Gateway Protocol Adapter GE

  Regarding the FIWARE.Feature.IoT.Gateway.ProtocolAdapter.Adapter.Codec <https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FIWARE.Feature.IoT.Gateway.ProtocolAdapter.Adapter.Codec>  Feature, I believe it would be worth elaborating on what specific Codecs will be supported.  

  While the two first Features (Codec, BasicSecurity) seem to be independent of the specific protocol for which adaptation is supported, the rest of Features seem to be linked to adaptation to the ZigBee protocol.  Shouldn't we identify those Features with an Id which makes adaptation to ZigBee explicit ?   For example:

FIWARE.Feature.IoT.Gateway.ProtocolAdapter.ZigBee.BasicCommunication
FIWARE.Feature.IoT.Gateway.ProtocolAdapter.ZigBee.ResponseMessagesGeneration


instead of:

FIWARE.Feature.IoT.Gateway.ProtocolAdapter.BasicCommunication
FIWARE.Feature.IoT.Gateway.ProtocolAdapter.ResponseMessagesGeneration


  Regarding the FIWARE.Feature.IoT.Gateway.ProtocolAdapter.NativeProtocolAdapter.BasicSecurity <https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FIWARE.Feature.IoT.Gateway.ProtocolAdapter.NativeProtocolAdapter.BasicSecurity>  Feature, I miss a more elaborated description, maybe explaining a bit how authentication between devices may work (if there is some web page or document which elaborates on that, it would be enough to provide a link here)
Not for this release, but currently under resolution (you see already zigbee in the name of the features, Sabrina from TI is currently editing in the wiki).



8. Gateway Data Handling GE

  No particular comments.   Maybe it would be nice to revise the formula used in Goals to be more aligned with the formulas used in other GEs and also commented in the General Comments shared with all chapters.
No issue.

 

 

________________________________


Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at.
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-iot/attachments/20120726/d114c02f/attachment.html>