 Well, thanks for coming you probably came to one of the most boring talks on the face of the planet around standards But I'll try and make it somewhat interesting for y'all My name is Jeff Maynard. I'm a principal architect a cloud technology partners based out of Boston We're a shop that ends up doing a lot of cloud migration as well as new app and platform development so Without further ado this one I'm going to talk through Just a brief introduction about me You actually understand why you should kind of care what I have to say And then walk through how the industry tries to define enough things where it came from where it's going Current standard of standards I'm sure that many of you are here to kind of figure out how do you navigate those waters kind of point of the talk The problems with standards is I'm sure many of you have actually experienced and then how to actually navigate through all that and then For the product people in the house. How do you build good stuff? And I'm going to try and breeze through this pretty quickly and then at the end I find it always be better interaction have questions and answers. So a quick intro to me Like I said earlier. I'm a principal architect the cloud technology partners My specialties are a geospatial temporal data and forward deployed sensor networks And some of the things that I've built I've built nanosatellites Built autonomous locomotive platforms connected health platforms As well as some big brother behavioral analytic platforms that track people where they go and what they do The kind of things I like are bulleted lists. It's pretty apparent Be your whiskey motorcycles ice climbing things that go boom. This is the coolest picture. I have Our company always likes to have headshots and they're always a so give us your best photo. This is the one I gave them They didn't like it, but I do No one wants to see my face all over and over and over again And the things that I don't like are people I don't use the Oxford comma Defining IOT so a lot of people try and make IOT seem very simple and everyone fails primarily Here you can see the Oxford dictionary has their own definitions ETSI ITU and the IEEE And this is just a handful of the kind of common definitions There's another 50 or 100 right behind it and so actually figuring out what IOT is is a challenge And what standards apply to IOT and figuring out that is also a huge challenge, especially for verticals that are highly regulated Anyone here deal with transportation or health care Yeah, it's difficult and I empathize So just figuring out how they define IOT It really does kind of set up Which standards you have to navigate and the thing to remember with IOT is it's not as easy as it is for like a class 2 medical Device of software right and that's still pretty complex But now you have hardware you have a communication backhaul you have protocols then you have software compliance You have cloud compliance security bunch of other things so My best definition is kind of how would I explain this to my girlfriend's family because they ask me all the time What do I do for a living and IOT doesn't really suffice so The way I define IOT is from sensors to action, right? That's kind of the big takeaway You're trying to have something out in the world that can tell you or inform you So you can take action against that data without action is kind of meaningless So what's involved in IOT solution For many of you this may be old hat, so I apologize, but for those that are kind of new to this to give you an idea These are the different levels. We have the edge and fog I hate fog Cisco if anyone here is from Cisco, please talk to your internal people about get ready in the word fog It's just complicating things Then you have the cloud big data and then the bigger part which is the applications and the people in process The part that people always overlook is people in process half of navigating standards isn't actually Technology-focused its compliance from people And engineers a lot of the times only think of technology and the business only thinks of the people To make a good solution that meets all the requirements both sides have to come together and you'll hear that throughout this entire talk I'm a product person at heart and I happen to work for a professional services company I don't think of things just from the technology side or the business side But both have to work together. You have to get adoption on both sides. That's very important so IOT past and present It's been around for a while. It's just now just been coined IOT, right? We had telematics into M we still have these things and IOT is also kind of a misnomer internet of things most of the systems I've built don't actually live on the internet maybe an intranet or a a Private network, but rarely do enterprise level IOT solutions actually touch the internet and there's a lot of reasons for that a lot of it is the old guard is really worried about the Internet's the big evil beast out there and they like their perimeter security And we kind of have to work within that a lot of the times we come in and they have a perimeter based security posture and they won't open up to the internet which really limits them and then we have other customers that Are actually very open to doing something new. I don't do a lot in the consumer side of the house. A lot of my stuff is industrial So They're a little bit more used to M to M, right? Manufacturing has been doing IOT for 20 years So a lot of these folks that are coming into it thinking IOT is this new thing When you go and try and sell to a caterpillar or something you normally get laughed out of the room Because they've been doing this But the big things that have really driven the adoption of IOT is Costs of decreased capabilities of increase and a lot of this is because the cloud and Moore's law They are the IOT solution architects best friend Moore's law allows you to start to do more distributed computing at the edge Which I don't know if many of you have had to deal with sub gig communication or cellular cellular is expensive And so the more reprocessing you can do at the edge the better And luckily folks like Intel AMD they're all coming out with Chips that can actually do a lot of this low power computing at the edge Which gives you a lot of room to maneuver within especially in industries where if you don't have connectivity You don't run a connected locomotive cannot all of a sudden stop being smart and drive itself When it goes through a tunnel things like that Where did it really come from primarily vehicle telematics and connected manufacturing? Anyone here from that space or those spaces? Yeah, you just seem to be from everywhere. Are you Intel? Yeah, okay So it's true that there's other industries that have started to have been doing this for a while But those are the two that really drove adoption They were the only two that really saw a return on investment And they continued to pump money into it and it wasn't until the cloud came around where other people were able to start to access it access it But what are we doing with it now We're doing a lot. A lot of the stuff has already been kind of done for a while And we're now starting to augment it and make it a little bit better I think I've built solutions for the majority of these things except for retail actually and You know, there's a business driver for each one of these things primarily and the technology is the thing that had to kind of catch up Just to go over a couple examples everyone knows wearables Don't need to elaborate on that but like smart ports Right being able to actually track every ship in the world every plane in the sky every railroad and be able to figure out Where the bottlenecks are so you can reduce the Hiccups that you end up having in a handoff of a cargo container that just came across the ocean has to hop on a railroad And then make its way, you know, just some inland port or something like that Connected car. I saw that folks have a booth out there Intel as a booth all about connected car, right? This is a huge cool thing autonomous driving. I'm from Boston. I'm a little worried about autonomous driving on my streets But it's because they're old and small What's driving investment? And this is kind of where I said I'm going to talk a little bit about business and technology New business models are really kind of spearheading a lot of this folks are realizing that they're already going to make these Investments in technology. They want them to pay for themselves as well as try and make the company money Compliance is a big one Interesting fact for you to be able to Meet the socks compliance requirements to depreciate assets You have to be able to actually audit them and know where they are now if you have hundreds of thousands of Assets out in the world that you need to audit that can actually be a heroic effort and cost you millions of dollars All of a sudden now people make these devices You can slap on something and track it and press a button and do that audit, right? These kind of things are Driven by compliance But actually really driving value for businesses and that's where you see a lot of IOT actually thriving Skip to the meat of its standards. It's super complex Here's just a couple groups trying to make standards and it's not too scary You have hardware communications and a couple industry standards Also realized that the the Dorothy quote I was going for here does not read as well when typed out as when said in the movie, so So this is all manageable That's not It's huge this is just a piece of it. These are just the horizontals when I even talked about the vertical players And I would say this is maybe a quarter of the folks that you kind of need to have an idea of what they do and who they are this makes it really really challenging and When I got into this space eight years ago, it was maybe even half this list here very manageable and it keeps ballooning And this is where people start to struggle They look, you know, you have a company or a line of business has budget and okay We want to do IOT, but maybe they're federally regulated in some way shape or form It's hard for them to know which partners they can work with in the ecosystem from a technology standpoint What vendors that will allow them to meet their compliance requirements and build something that's actually meaningful to the business And that's hopefully why y'all are here A few standards that are obviously leading the way though Z wave is up in the air Is Wi-Fi halo? Sub gig version of Wi-Fi, right? It's a lot easier to work with in terms of industrial settings Big huge issue with Wi-Fi and a lot of customer sites is that water absorbs it So if you have anything where you have pipes in the walls or anything like that Good luck. The other problem too is it's you know requires a lot of power The IEEE is trying to fix that with the standard Which is actually one of the more promising standards in my personal opinion Bluetooth smart or BLE It's another one the value with Bluetooth is not necessarily the ability for you to Do like mesh networking necessarily though that is a win I would say it's actually ability for people to interact with these devices, right? Everyone's got a smartphone Bluetooth allows you to actually interact and People always forget about the services component Someone's got to go out there and provide maintenance on whatever device you're deploying And deployment is hard also provisioning all these other things it always is gonna involve a person in most of your applications and so Being able to navigate You know the Bluetooth standard is actually very valuable Z wave Yeah, we skip that Zigbee is coming out Or continues to come out with a evolving spec Primarily to connect lower-cost devices, right? This is your five to ten dollar kind of price range Six low-pan same thing. Those is for low-power devices with very limited processing capability You see a lot of six low-pan solutions in Transportation and I'm not talking connected car. I'm talking connected rail where they actually will deploy little boxes on to everyone every piece of their equipment just to keep track of them or To actually have some kind of temperature sensor vibration sensor sending some data back to help them with their maintenance ULE and It's worth Talking about but I don't know how many people had issues with the old cordless Telephones in your house and how they used to break up as you went from one side of the house to the other They're using the same technology just repurposing it. So use it at your own risk And then thread It's newest came out a nest which is now obviously part of Google The cool thing here is that they are trying to get a Consortium pretty much to all follow this particular standard and set of protocols the big value you get is a Thread certified device gets an IPv6 address Which will be super great as we run out of IP addresses when we have 2030 Whatever the new billion number is that people are predicting we'll have in 2020 or 2050 And then the other thing you can't forget is that there's hardware standards cloud standards security standards Industry standards data standards privacy standards and regulatory standards and a lot of other standards depending on what industry you're in There's a lot so With all those hands, let's talk about some of the problems that they impose on folks trying to build solutions The biggest problem is that there's too many competing IIT standards. There's a lot of overlap Everyone's trying to do the same thing just better than the other guy with some little piece of secret sauce And while they think that they're trying to help the industry They're actually Complicating it because then you trying to create a solution have to figure out which of these is the one that's going to end up winning Or how do I build something so that I can plug and play different? Protocols or standards into my solution so that yeah if this one ends up getting deprecated because no one adopts it How can I just switch over to the newly adopted standard? I Don't know about you, but for me when I all of a sudden started running an IOT practice I was a little overwhelmed and having to be the authority in my company on all these standards And then I started to kind of change my perception started to see them as another really building plans or frameworks Which allow me to move faster. I can adopt a Particular standard utilize it for what I think it's great for make sure I don't make my solution So I'm pigeonholed in it, but actually use it as guardrails My engineers all of a sudden now have some something to work within and we don't spend a ton of time trying to do a pro And con of every standard out there. We kind of take our gut and go with what we think works best And it really comes down to how you architect your solution So to evaluate standards to use it or not The couple questions we always ask is what value is a given standard going to bring to my application? You know you have to all of a sudden obviously if you're doing medical data you have to comply with HIPAA standards You have to also deal with PHI standards If you end up building a medical device that's powered by your solution Your platform or application then you have to think about the FDA then you have to think about high-tech and all these other pieces So obviously there's value in having to conform simply so you can hit the market But then you know while the IEEE and a bunch of other academics fight over which standards the best What does it really matter to you as long as you are choosing something that provides the most value to you? What are the risks of not using a specific standard? This is kind of the old school beta max versus VHS thing the risk of not choosing a standard is that when you get audited or Your client comes back and says you didn't stick with best practices You're kind of hitting getting hit for it, right? If you at least stick to a standard you have some Kind of somewhere else to kind of shift the blame and say hey, I was trying to follow industry best practices What are the risks of leveraging a standard ultimately fails like I said earlier a lot of them do we have so many standards currently Obviously, they can't all win so The risks that you have if you pigeon solo yourself is all of a sudden your application You're gonna have to start supporting every piece of it because no one else is going to support aspects of it And then the bigger question that I always ask is can I have input into the standard? Are are they Is it an open consortium or is it a committee based standard that I can actually say hey I'd like to throw my hat in the ring and say these are the things I'd like to see the standard make or do Or these are the piece. I don't like maybe we can deprecate them A lot of people don't think that they can have a lot of input into standards and you'd be surprised People are normally clamoring for input And people just don't really either have the time or the interest or the knowledge that they can do it And go and participate the IEEE, you know every six months opens up their Some of the IOT Standards bodies for you to participate sometimes you need a corporate sponsor, right? So some people may or may not be able to actually participate, but you're willing to pay the money You know, I'd say it's best to actually go and have a voice So how to navigate all the standards soup The huge question people always ask is do I do open standard or a proprietary one There's pros and cons to both open standards normally end up being involved in a more proactive and more thoughtful Manor because what they're looking to do is they're looking to get adoption, right? They don't want you to necessarily be stuck with that standard They're looking for you to they're looking to build out their ecosystem And so they want people to participate they want to continue to evolve it that reduces the support requirement that any one person Or group has to do and really disseminates the work on the other hand You have proprietary standards. They're a little bit more reactive a lot of the times The only times that they change is when something goes wrong And they need to fix it because there's a big scandal or you know something happened And their whole purpose is to make it sticky once you're using a proprietary standard. They don't want you to leave But they also sometimes like to have faster time to value So you have to weigh the pros and cons of what what are you really looking to do? Are you trying to get something to market in six months or less? Or are you looking to make something that is as future-proof as possible and Full disclosure I've been in startups for most of my life. And so I'm a big proponent of open standards versus proprietary But I'll talk a little bit later about how Proprietary sometimes ends up winning The other big question is what problems do these standards solve the hope is that a standard allows you to Standardize the way in which you handle data so that if you're being audited or You're integrating with some other system. There's an there's an expectation Now that's great when everyone's using some of the same standards, but as I said earlier, there's so many competing ones They all have a different schema all different have a different architecture It does really make it challenging to integrate systems Most of the time your home automation Pieces like Sarah talked about earlier. They don't work with each other threads trying to fix that but Doesn't make sense, right in this Ecosystem, why would you not want it so that you could talk to any other device because the expectation of the customer or the consumer? Is that all these things will work in concert without them having to think about it, right? So the big fear No one wants to bet on the wrong horse I'm sure many people kind of lost their Their jobs or such choosing beta max over VHS And the big fear for IOT solutionists is that you're going to choose the wrong standards and I would argue that Choosing a standard versus paralysis by analysis, I would choose one and go with it. You got to start somewhere So do we wait for all the academics and the industry leaders to actually come together and come to a consensus? We can't IOT FOMO and every CIO CTO has got some kind of IOT budget They're pushing hard to figure out what this thing is for them and actually how does it affect their business? Solutions don't have time to pump the brakes and wait for folks to kind of come to a consensus The other thing is standards shouldn't lead you you should not just blindly follow a standard It should be viewed as a map or a trail guide to help you architect the best solution You can given current state of things and that's always the asterisk I add in when I talk to customers is we're building you the best To breed now a lot of times people will say What is the industry standard and I'll say I'll tell you in six months after we've built your solution because There is none and we're going to make it right a lot of customers that are or companies that are willing to be pioneers They're the ones that are going to create kind of the leading standards and it may not necessarily be a Google or an Intel that drive that And I'll talk a little bit more about that later, but my one word of wisdom is when in doubt just pick one That's open Rather than a proprietary one and that's primarily true unless you're in aviation Few things to consider Some providers products will become so popular the company can define the standard all by themselves For example YouTube has defined the standards for streaming data or video. Sorry Because they are a lot of the traffic right Netflix will probably be the ones to figure out with YouTube what that standard actually looks like in the end And then the interesting thing is historically the winning standards are always the ones that are backed by licensed spectrum owners And that's across the gamut that means hardware and communications So that's your Vodafone your Verizon and AT&T and the reason for that is that they're big influencers But also if they don't like the protocol that you're using they won't allow you access to their network They all of a sudden kill off protocols that they don't like or standards that they don't like So keep an eye out for which ones they're backing the other thing is Historically consortiums have never really yielded the winner So you see a lot of consortiums happening not only just around IOT but blockchain and a bunch of other things be very wary Because normally they don't win you have too many cooks in the kitchen trying to standardize a standard and No one will ever agree Goldman Sachs for example dropped out of the R3 consortium for blockchain because they didn't like that Some of their input wasn't being taken and they went off and started their own consortium You'll see the same stuff happening in IOT if it isn't already So how do we build good stuff? Start with the right approach And this is pretty much right out of a product development kind of playbook, right? Identify your customers problem Figure out what data you need to solve that problem Identify the right tools and technologies architect the solution build it and deploy it and then iterate and number six is going to be the hardest one And I'll explain a little bit. So The number one question we always ask when we're designing IOT solutions is why is it a problem? Why is this business problem a real problem? And does the business see it as a problem that needs to be solved? History of building successful things technology driving technology rarely ever wins you need to have Something that is driven by the business in hand-in-hand with technologists So it can actually be used At my company our CEO likes to say that everyone's in sales So money is money, but I prefer to actually build things that are used and meaningful to the world as much as possible The other thing is figure out what data is required to solve your customer's problem This means interviewing a lot of people Interview the business it ot folks and the customers of your customers because a lot of the times They think they know how to solve this problem, and they don't they think they need the super expensive forward-deployed sensor when they really need a five-dollar chip on of you know with a little sensor and The Barrett entries way lower than they actually think Identify the right tools for the job. So this is where probably a lot of you guys come in is finding out what technologies are the right ones And the way you should think about is what technologies enable you to get the data required and the method required and the methods important Simply because a lot of people Build solutions thinking oh, there's always connectivity or they don't actually set foot at a customer site and realize Oh, it's a mine, right? What is a mine have it and it's got or that affects how Communications can be done. You have to daisy chain things That kind of stuff gets overlooked when you're kind of sitting back in an office And you're not actually boots on the ground So we always go and we actually visit the client sites where things are going to be deployed to figure out What is the right technology mix that you need and that's all IOT really is it's a set of tools for you to solve problems And this is where that whole sensors from action thing comes in Really you're all you need to do is identify the right technologies and Standards that allow you to get data from the field and have the business take action against it Effort should be made though here to make things as modular as possible But don't overdo it you need to balance between making something as future-proof as possible versus time to market and time to value A lot of the times people get kind of scared off at the idea of an IOT solution Because they do a little bit of a POC right and it takes a couple months and then they hear oh, it'll take us a year to build out a Pilot and they're like well once my return on investment gonna look like and you say oh 18 to 24 months And then the conversation stops there right make the thing do exactly what you need it to do With as much future-proofing as possible, but not so much that you shoot yourself in the foot We try and build solutions that take six months to build and Take less than 12 months to get a return on investment Which is a challenge, but that actually forces us to talk with our customers and make sure that they're What we're building for them is actually what they need most of the time your customers don't know what they need So architecting the solution as I said future-proof or possible But use your educated gut like I'm sure you all read enough articles you have a good sense of what's going on the fear is that you're not gonna architect it in a way that We'll make it so you can Change parts out in the future But you got to put a stake in the ground somewhere And then pay attention from other folks's mistakes. I make mistakes a lot And I watch a lot of people other people in the IT industry make mistakes and I learn from theirs Most of the time it's their design or you know, they build a really cool solution But they didn't think about the user experience of the service folks that are utilizing it and all of a sudden It dies because no one can actually use the thing And if you make too many reactive course corrections before you even get somewhere You're gonna stall your process So plan a flag somewhere and just start going forward with minimal changes and just trust that you're building the right thing by using the the standards as a framework or a guide rather than a Perfect how-to you need to do it just like this And then build the solution as you're building talk to your customers a lot internal or external And respectfully challenge them on what they think the level of completeness needs to be right now most of the time They think it needs to have all the bells and whistles before it can actually go out and provide value and it doesn't a lot of the times They over complicate things You know, do you need to have a bridge completely wired up so you can sense any damage to it? Or can you just track the things that can cause damage to it? Which one's easier for you to do? and This all sounds kind of like agile methodology You know iterate talk to your customers reprioritize But I'm not really trying to sell you that because it doesn't really work that well. Most customers can't keep up With an agile kind of framework, right? So we do a pseudo agile approach Where we try and do it as flexible as possible for our delivery teams and then we just expect our customer to be a month behind and If you go in with that expectation you can kind of Mitigate the pain points that come around The one thing to keep in mind is if you're going to try and do an agile method. It's really hard with hardware, but it's not impossible Someone has built a company has built a car in three months. That's roadworthy using an agile methodology. So Aspire to that kind of level of greatness because I know that I do But your mileage may vary the other interesting thing is that Engineering teams at big companies are actually evolving pretty quickly and they can keep up. It's the finance teams that can't So if you ever bet hitting your head against the wall trying to be like, hey, why can't we get this thing going? Don't blame the engineers probably blame finance and then the hardest part Is deploying the solution? It's far more complicated than many people think And this is dictated by the type of solution in what industry you're in if there's federal or state regulations Your actual deployment of your solution can take two three x the time it took to actually build it this is frustrating for people like me who I like to build and get stuff done and Put deploy it and see how it works It's not that easy when the device that you're kind of controlling lives inside someone the FDA has a lot of requirements And hoops that you have to jump through So keep that in mind when you're building these things The standards here will help potentially if you chose one and you kind of adhered to it pretty well And you documented your process. It may actually help you streamline this pain point of managing through regulation and governance And then iterate you've ever heard of agile. This is pretty self-explanatory So a few words about mistakes and you know, don't be afraid to make them while you're embarking on this journey We all have and will continue to do so. I have made many The important thing is to make sure that those mistakes do not all of a sudden stop process progress or inhibit operations of your customers Make sure you can learn from them Don't let those mistakes become heroic obstacles. You have to overcome later So if you're gonna go with a proprietary standard, you know that to move away from that may actually be heroic effort And good stuff is built to be at least somewhat future-proof. Don't build yourself in a quarer and I don't really believe in luck in building good solutions So I stole something from my old chemistry teacher, which is I wish you brilliance wisdom and clarity on solving solutions to solve hard problems That's it questions Not all at once. Sure transportation totally the best ones and transportation and Automated manufacturing Necessity I would say margin on cars and the margin on shipping goods to and from is becoming squished more and more and more and they're having to figure out every pot potential way to either add Revenue from the data they generate or reduce their operating costs And so when you have those kind of situations all of a sudden you find a really great place to Test things and get adoption very quickly because as soon as one takes it all the others are going to for example maresk Back in the day deployed Hundreds of thousands of GPS sensors on their cargo containers to try and optimize them as soon as they did that Everyone else started following suit because the fear is if they can optimize their system And deployment for all their cargo containers all of a sudden they're going to price everyone else out And so in places where you see small margin You won't see a lot of money for R&D So the POC has to be pretty easy and that as I said earlier the time to ROI has to be short But that's where you actually see people doing meaningful deployments of IOT solutions Sure, so the question is the dine attack is that going to affect Standards the answer is yes But how is up for debate? standards bodies take way too long so you're actually seeing a lot of companies plug that hole that security hole a lot faster and They're clamoring to try and find a standard to adhere to But there's kind of this big void right now The IEEE is trying to create a strong security architecture Standard for IOT But it's just taking time. There's a lot of cooks in that kitchen So people are kind of taking what they think it's going to look like and that's what they're building too But there's a lot of other problems that came with that right so if you think about it when you build IOT solutions You have to think about physical security as well You know, do you actually need to have an operating system on the device or can you just deal with embedded code? A lot of people try and make every device have every bell and whistle I actually try and make things to have the least functionality as possible When it comes to devices that will leave my customers hands Simply because I don't know who's going to get them I built cargo container trackers back in the day that those cargo containers ended up in China and Venezuela and places like that and we knew that they were being taken off and people were trying to reprogram them or Re-engineer them. So what we did is we made few entry points into that system And if we detected that a device was compromised, we just cut it off We'd notify the customer and say, you know, this is a rogue device You don't have control over it anymore and that's the big challenge is people have always been able to have all of their data centers All the connectivity within their physical control primarily or on things that they had physical control over like airplanes and things like that Now you're putting these little sensors that people didn't think would be able to do anything out in the world other than what they were programmed to do and If you give them an open connection to the internet all of a sudden, you know People can take them over and cause a lot of habit When you say open standards I'm thinking of standards that aren't owned by a Cisco or Aren't owned by a qualcomm right Normally ones that are contributed to you by the ecosystem and Aren't the final say is not in the hands of a company I would say that that's the big thing because they have their own agenda And their whole thing is to get people to use their products and that you know pros and cons to that if they make it really easy for you to get to market great But they're not going to make it easy for you to move whereas a standard that has been Contributed to by a ecosystem of people that simply want adoption of that standard The whole thing that their whole premise is that they want you to use it because it's the best thing out there And if you need to change Yeah, they'll care a little bit, but there's no one person that has you know is left there holding the bag being like crap We just lost a huge customer Sure So when you are looking at a standard, how do you then decide which version of it to implement? It's a case-by-case basis like a lot of the times my customers have a lot of input into that Mostly because they're old-school customers that have a particular set of Requirements and so you need to find the version of that standard that meets most of those But then you need to push back right a lot of the times anything with it You're gonna poke holes and people's normal kind of view of security the cloud has done that obviously right the whole big fear was Oh, there's a hypervisor people can you know, it's all virtualized routers and things They got over that fear slowly But surely they'll get over the same types of fear with adopting new IOT standards that break their current kind of Expectation of requirements for adding devices to their systems Not to the mind knowledge currently there's no standard that kind of Is around enforcement from like law enforcement for ticketing? I do know that the FCC published in January a list of Things that they want to better define Around IOT one of them is the ability to actually use it for federal and state prosecution So how do you have the provenance of that data right? That's important That and people aren't manipulating the data because anytime people can argue and be like oh well prove to me that the data Hasn't been touched and if it's simply a camera that took a picture your license plate and dropped it into a database And there's no kind of continuity of that data and provenance where you can say without a doubt Hasn't been changed It's pretty easy actually arguing court that well. There's a potential chance. It was it was changed And it's not a big deal for necessarily individual people per se But if you own a trucking company and you have a lot of violations coming through because you do a lot of business in states That have you know these cameras Yeah, it can prove to be a challenge But hasn't been a challenge to the right people yet to actually have a standard created To the best of my knowledge that could doesn't mean that there isn't one formulating but Yeah, so currently the the federal government has a requirement that trucking companies or independent truckers provide Certain manifests right and certain logs. They don't say anything about how those logs have to be created They just have to kind of fall into a particular template and they have to be auditable I'm sure that as things become more and more automated or smart at the truck level that Some standard will come out around the data probably more so than you know a system level Standard where it's how do you get the data off the the truck? That's not the important part The important part is that you're actually able to have integrity in the data that you're collecting in the back was the question the significance of IPv6 yeah, so The significance is the fact that all of these devices that you want to talk to the internet all have to have an IP address, right? so If we're running out of them already The new the new IPv6 is actually going to open up a huge volume that we can actually start to assign to all these devices The expectation you hear it from Gartner a couple other places that ranges from 20 billion connected devices to like 35 or 40 billion by 2020 or 2025 To support all those devices using current technology We have to open up the number of IP addresses that we can have access to now It's different when a lot of those devices and I don't know how where they draw the line If those devices actually going to be connected to the open internet or if they're going to be an intranet or Something of that nature if they are connected the open internet. Yeah, they're gonna all of a sudden clog up all the addresses Yeah, and for a lot of the IT solutions that I build The change to I IPv6 isn't really going to affect anything Simply because you know a lot of what I run is You know UDP based or it's closed networks I don't deal with the consumer side too much. So I can't talk too too much about the security around IPv6 Sorry, I can't give you a better answer, but Anything else? All these services are all these providers providing endpoint services For IOT data. It's a double-edged sword, right? There's this artificial fear of cloud lock. You rarely see customers move from one cloud provider to another it does happen But it's rare So people are have this constant fear of oh if I start utilizing services that are provided by Amazon or Google It's gonna be heroic effort to migrate down the road. I see it as more of a benefit Simply because if you have One group creating or a couple groups creating the endpoints You can standardize those a lot better and you can have more confidence You don't have to worry necessarily about a huge attack surface If you can point stuff to a service because they're gonna provide a lot of that security at the endpoint for you Let's work for solutionist to kind of work around now that doesn't help you when you have to have things that can be deployed in both data centers and You know in countries where maybe Amazon or Google or Microsoft don't have a presence A lot of our solutions that we have to build have to be able to deploy it in like place like South Africa but It will accelerate time to value And it will do to your costs up front But you'll have to look down the road and figure out what happens if I have you know How many devices do you need and what's their pricing model versus creating your own, you know data and gesturing? Peace and it all will be Yep, yeah Yeah, I would say that you'll see a lot of that more probably with Google and Microsoft a little bit less with Amazon normally when they deploy something they make smaller changes Because they put enough thought, you know their whole big thing is they take a product and create it as a service that that's their their big Strength right and so by the time you actually get a service through them. It's pretty in a good state Microsoft and folks are trying to catch up and so you see a lot of changes happening there and so they're moving very quickly and Sometimes, you know, Microsoft has some advantages over Google and Amazon such as like their network gains a little bit stronger They're user friendly