The W3C Web of Things (WoT) is intended to enable interoperability across IoT Platforms and application domains. Primarily, it provides mechanisms to formally describe IoT interfaces to allow IoT devices and services to communicate with each other, independent of their underlying implementation, and across multiple networking protocols. Secondarily, it provides a standardized way to define and program IoT behavior.

This document describes the abstract architecture for the W3C Web of Things. It is derived from a set of use cases and can be mapped onto a variety of concrete deployment scenarios, several examples of which are given. This document is focused on the standardization scope of W3C WoT, which consists of three initial building blocks that are briefly introduced and their interplay explained.

The WoT Thing Description (TD) provides a formal mechanism to describe the network interface provided by IoT devices and services, independent of their implementation. Provision of a TD is the primary requirement for a device to participate in the Web of Things. In fact, defining a Thing Description for an existing device allows that device to participate in the Web of Things without having to make any modifications to the device itself. WoT Binding Templates define how a WoT device communicates using a concrete protocol. The WoT Scripting API—whose use is not mandatory—provides a convenient mechanism to discover, consume, and expose Things based on the WoT Thing Description.

Other non-normative architectural blocks and conditions underlying the Web of Things are also described in the context of deployment scenarios. In particular, recommendations for security and privacy are included, while the goal is to preserve and support existing device mechanisms and properties. In general, W3C WoT is designed to describe what exists rather than to prescribe what to implement.

Status of This Document

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at https://www.w3.org/TR/.

Editor's note: The W3C WoT WG is asking for feedback

Please contribute to this draft using the GitHub Issue feature of the WoT Architecture repository. For feedback on security and privacy considerations, please use the WoT Security and Privacy Issues, as they are cross-cutting over all our documents.

This document was published by the Web of Things Working Group as a First Public Working Draft. This document is intended to become a W3C Recommendation.

Comments regarding this document are welcome. Please send them to public-wot-wg@w3.org (subscribe, archives).

Publication as a First Public Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.

This document is governed by the 1 March 2017 W3C Process Document.

1. Introduction

The "Web of Things" (WoT) started as an academic initiative in the form of publications and, starting in 2010, a yearly International Workshop on the Web of Things. Its goal is to improve interoperability as well as usability in the Internet of Things (IoT). With the increasing role of IoT services using other web standards in commercial and industrial applications, the W3C chartered an Interest Group in 2015 to identify technological building blocks for Recommendation Track standardization. With the WoT Working Group chartered end of 2016, the first set of WoT building blocks is now being standardized:

This document serves as an umbrella for the W3C WoT draft specifications and defines the basics such as terminology and the underlying abstract architecture of the W3C Web of Things. In particular, the purpose of this document is to provide

2. Terminology

This document uses the following terms as defined here. The WoT prefix is used to avoid ambiguity for terms that are defined specifically for Web of Things concepts.

Editor's note

Please refer to this markdown file. Once the terminology definitions are stable, they will be included here.

3. Use Cases

This section is non-normative.

This section presents the use cases targeted by the W3C WoT and which are used to derive the abstract architecture discussed in 5. WoT Building Blocks. While Smart Home use cases might appear predominant in this section, they should be seen as simply a vehicle to identify fundamental requirements inherent to most application domains. The Smart Home domain is suitable for identifying such general requirements, as most stakeholders can relate to it.

3.1 Smart Home

The Smart Home is one of the application domains targeted by W3C WoT. As stated above its use cases are eligible to convey the fundamental requirements on discovery, connectivity, and provided functionality. Also security has become a central issue in consumer systems. Furthermore, Smart Home use cases have stronger privacy requirements than commercial and industrial ones. In general, however, the fundamental aspects of the Smart Home use cases given also apply to other use cases.

3.1.1 Device Controllers

The first use case is a local device controlled by user-operated remote controller as depicted in Figure 1 Device Control. For example, an electronic appliance such as an air conditioner with Web server functionality might be connected directly to a local home network. A remote controller can access the air conditioner through the local home network directly. In this case, the remote controller can be realized by a browser or native application.

Figure 1 Device Control

3.1.2 Thing-to-Thing

Figure 2 Control Agent shows an example of direct Thing-to-Thing interaction. The scenario is as follows: when a sensor detects the room temperature is surpassing a set threshold (e.g., 25°C), a control agent issues a "power-on" command to an air conditioner.

Figure 2 Control Agent

3.1.3 Multiple Network Interfaces

The third use case is a mobile remote controller (e.g., on a smartphone) as shown in Figure 3 Multiple Network Interfaces. When at home, the smartphone can use Wi-Fi or Bluetooth/BLE to control an electronic appliance locally, while outside, it can use the cellular network.

Figure 3 Multiple Network Interfaces

3.1.4 Gateways

Figure 4 Smart Home Gateway shows a use case based on a Smart Home gateway. It is placed between a home network and the Internet. The gateway manages electronic appliances inside the house and can receive commands from a remote controller over the Internet, e.g., from a smartphone as in the previous use case.

Figure 4 Smart Home Gateway

3.1.5 Cloud Proxies

Cloud proxies can be realized in different ways:

Editor's note

The complexity of the use cases here increases too quickly. They will be split up to progressively add and explain each new feature. Cloud-ready Devices

Figure 5 Proxies with Cloud-ready Devices shows an example where electronic appliances are connected directly to the cloud. The cloud mirrors the appliances and, acting as a proxy, can receive commands from remote controllers (e.g., a smartphone). Authorized controllers can be located anywhere, as the proxy is globally reachable.

Figure 5 Proxies with Cloud-ready Devices Legacy Devices

Figure 6 Proxies with Legacy Devices shows an example where legacy electronic appliances cannot directly connect to the cloud. Here, a gateway is needed to relay the connection. The gateway works as:

  • integrator of a variety of legacy communication protocols both in the physical and logical view
  • firewall toward the Internet
  • privacy filter which substitutes real image and/or speech, and logs data locally
  • local agent in case the Internet connection is interrupted
  • emergency services running locally when fire alarms and similar events occur

The cloud mirrors the gateway with all connected appliances and acts as an agent that manages them in the cloud in conjunction with the gateway. Furthermore, the cloud can receive commands from remote controllers (e.g., a smartphone), which can be located anywhere.

Figure 6 Proxies with Legacy Devices

3.2 Smart Factory

Figure 7 Smart Factory shows an example of a Smart Factory. In this case, cell controllers automate factory equipment with specialized communication such as RS-485 or EtherCAT. Line controllers orchestrate multiple cell controllers over IP-based networks. A factory controller integrates different line controllers. A cloud service collects data from the factory controller and analyzes them for predictive maintenance. Users can monitor the factory through a dashboard. Note that factories usually do not reveal the internal topology of their lines and cells.

Figure 7 Smart Factory

3.3 Connected Car

Figure 8 Connected Car shows an example of a Connected Car. In this case, a gateway connects to car components through CAN and to the car navigation system through a proprietary interface. Services running in the cloud collect data pushed from car components and analyze the data from multiple cars to determine traffic patterns. The gateway can also consume cloud services, in this case, to get traffic data and show it to the driver through the car navigation system.

Figure 8 Connected Car

4. Functional Requirements

This section is non-normative.

This section defines the properties required in an abstract Web of Things (WoT) architecture.

4.1 Flexibility

There are a wide variety of physical device configurations for WoT implementations. The WoT abstract architecture should be able to be mapped to and cover all of the variations.

4.2 Compatibility

We already have many existing IoT solutions and ongoing IoT standardization activities in many business fields. The WoT should provide a bridge between these existing and developing IoT solutions and Web technology based on WoT concepts. The WoT should be upwards compatible with existing IoT solutions and current standards.

4.3 Security and Privacy

Editor's note

This section will likely undergo significant revision and reorganization. Please see the WoT Security and Privacy repository for work in progress. In particular, the WoT Threat Model defines the main WoT security stakeholders, assets, attack surfaces, and threats.

The functional WoT architecture should enable the use of best practices in security and privacy. Generally, the WoT security architecture must support the goals and mechanisms of the IoT protocols and systems it connects to. These systems vary in their security requirements and risk tolerance, so security mechanisms will also vary based on these factors. However, the WoT architecture needs to do no harm: it should support security and privacy at least as well as the systems it connects to.

Security means the system should preserve its integrity and functionality even when subject to attack. Privacy means that the system should maintain the confidentiality of personally identifiable information. In general, security and privacy cannot be guaranteed but the WoT architecture should support best practices.

Security and privacy are especially important in the IoT domain since IoT devices need to operate autonomously and in many cases have access to both personal data and/or can be in control of safety-critical systems. Compared to personal systems, IoT devices are subject to different and in some cases higher risks than IT systems. It is also important to protect IoT systems so that they can not be used to launch attacks on other computer systems.

5. WoT Building Blocks

This section presents the initial WoT building blocks that build up the abstract architecture for the Web of Things. This architecture is derived from the use cases in Section 3. Use Cases and the requirements in Section 4. Functional Requirements. Figure 9 Abstract Architecture of W3C WoT summarizes the high-level goals and requirements and shows the three levels where the WoT building blocks can be applied:

Figure 9 Abstract Architecture of W3C WoT

Figure 10 Conceptional Architecture of the WoT Building Blocks shows a conceptional view of how a component in the WoT Architecture makes use of the WoT building blocks. Each block is described in more detail in the following sections.

Figure 10 Conceptional Architecture of the WoT Building Blocks

5.1 Thing

A Thing is the abstraction of a physical or virtual entity that needs to be represented in IoT applications. This entity can be a device, a logical component of a device, a local hardware component, or even a logical entity such as a location (e.g., room or building).

Things provide a network-facing API for interaction (WoT Interface) based on a formal model. These WoT Interfaces are a superset of Web APIs, as Things can also be available over non-Web protocols such as MQTT or ZigBee. The outward-facing WoT Interface is not to be confused with the Scripting API, which is optional and interfaces with application scripts inside the software stack of a Thing.

There can be Things, however, that do not provide a WoT Interface and only consist of metadata that is relevant to the application (e.g., the room in which devices are located). In W3C WoT however, a Thing must have a Thing Description; therefore, everything that has a Thing Description is a Thing.

5.2 WoT Thing Description

The WoT Thing Description (TD) is structured data that adheres to a formal model and closes the gap between Linked Data vocabularies and functional APIs of IoT systems. It can be seen as the "HTML for Things". A TD provides general metadata of a Thing as well as metadata about the Interactions, data model, communication, and security mechanisms of a Thing. Usually, TDs make use of domain-specific metadata for which WoT provides explicit extension points. However, any domain-specific vocabulary is out-of-scope of the W3C standardization activity.

The WoT Thing Description is built around a formal Interaction Model that can support multiple messaging paradigms (i.e, request-response, publish-subscribe, and message passing). The default Interaction Patterns are Property, Action, and Event. These were found to be able to cover the network-facing APIs provided by most IoT Platforms. Properties abstract data points that can be read and often written. Actions abstract invokable processes that may run for a certain time; yet they can also abstract RPC-like interactions in general. Events abstract interactions where the remote endpoint pushes data asynchronously.

Thing Descriptions are serialized to JSON-LD [JSON-LD] by default. More serialization formats are planned in the future, in particular more concise formats for resource-constrained Things. For now, JSON-LD offers a good trade-off between machine-understandable semantics and usability for developers.

Thing Descriptions can be managed in Thing Directories, which are aligned with the CoRE Resource Directory [CoRE-RD]. They provide a Web interface for registration, registration updates, and removal, and automatic removal after a given lifetime expired without registration update. Thing Directories also provide a Web interface for lookups, usually including a SPARQL endpoint for semantic queries in addition to simple CoRE Resource Directory [CoRE-RD] lookups.

The WoT Thing Description fosters interoperability in two ways: First, and foremost, TDs enable machine-to-machine communication in the Web of Things. Second, TDs can serve as a common, uniform format for developers to document and retrieve all details necessary to access IoT devices and make use of their data.

5.3 WoT Binding Templates

A great challenge for the WoT is to enable interactions with a myriad of different IoT Platforms (e.g., OCF, oneM2M, RESTful devices not following any particular standard but providing an HTTP or CoAP interface, etc.). The IoT uses a variety of protocols for accessing devices, since no one protocol is appropriate in all contexts. W3C WoT is tackling this variety by including communication metadata in the Thing Description. This metadata can be used to configure the communication stack to produce compliant messages for a wide variety of target IoT Platforms and protocols.

The WoT Binding Templates are an informal collection of communication metadata blueprints that explain how to interact with different IoT Platforms. When creating a Thing Description for a particular device, the Binding Template for the corresponding IoT Platform can be used and instantiated in the Thing Description for that device.

Figure 11 From Binding Templates to Protocol Bindings

Figure 11 From Binding Templates to Protocol Bindings shows how Binding Templates are applied. A WoT Binding Template is created only once for each IoT Platform and then instantiated, and hence reused in all TDs for its devices. The WoT Client consuming that TD must implement the corresponding Protocol Binding to be able to interact with the Thing described. The communication metadata of a Binding spans four dimensions:

5.4 WoT Scripting API

The WoT Scripting API is an optional building block that eases IoT application development. Traditionally, device logic is implemented in firmware, which underlies the productivity constraints of embedded development. The WoT Scripting API enables having a runtime system for IoT applications similar to a Web browser, and aims to improve productivity and reduce integration costs. Furthermore, standardized APIs enable portability for application modules, for instance, to move compute-intense logic from a device up to a local gateway, or to move time-critical logic from the cloud down to a gateway or edge node.

The Scripting API is built on top of the Thing abstraction and the TD Interaction Model. There are three sub APIs:

6. WoT Servient Architecture

A Servient is a software stack that implements the WoT building blocks presented in the previous section. Servients can host and expose Things and/or consume Things. Thus, Servients can perform in both the server and client roles; the name (a portmanteau of server and client) is based on this dual role.

The previous Figure 10 Conceptional Architecture of the WoT Building Blocks shows how the WoT building blocks conceptionally relate to each other. When implementing these concepts, a more detailed view is necessary that takes certain technical aspects into account. The detailed architecture of a Servient is shown in Figure 12 Implementation View of a Servient.

Figure 12 Implementation View of a Servient

The role and functionality of each module shown in Figure 12 Implementation View of a Servient is as follows:

6.1 Application

Applications running on a Servient are usually implemented through scripts (i.e., JavaScript). These must be provided along with security metadata that defines their Execution Environment and consequently how scripts must be isolated. The security metadata also needs to include keying material or certificates to authenticate the Things the script exposes.

Note that the WoT Scripting API building block is optional. There can be minimal Servient implementations where applications are implemented natively for the software stack. These do not have the Scripting API and WoT Runtime modules.

6.2 WoT Scripting API

The standardized WoT Scripting API is the contract between applications and the runtime system of a Servient, the so-called WoT Runtime. The WoT Scripting API is equivalent to any platform API, and hence there must be mechanisms to prevent malicious access to the system. As mentioned above, this building block, including the underlying WoT Runtime implementation, is optional.

See WoT Scripting API for details.

6.3 WoT Runtime

The Thing abstraction and Interaction Model is implemented in a runtime system that offers the application-facing WoT Scripting API. This WoT Runtime interfaces with the Protocol Bindings to access remote Things and with the system API to access local hardware and proprietary means for communication. Note that both local hardware and devices behind proprietary communications protocols are also represented as Things in the runtime environment, that is, they are also accessed through the Client API. The WoT Runtime is also tasked with generating the Thing Description based on the Servient metadata (e.g., location), application metadata (e.g., provided Interactions), and available Protocol Bindings (e.g., implemented WoT Binding Templates).

6.4 Protocol Bindings

Protocol Bindings are implementations of the Binding Templates. They produce the messages to interact with Things over the network based on the information given in the Thing Description of the Consumed Thing. Servients usually have multiple Protocol Bindings to enable interaction with different IoT Platforms.

In many cases, where standard protocols are used, generic protocol stacks can be used to produce the platform-specific messages (e.g., one for HTTP(S) dialects, one for CoAP(S) dialects, and one for MQTT solutions, etc.). In this case, the communication metadata from the Thing Description is used to select and configure the right stack (e.g., HTTP with the right header fields or CoAP with the right options). Parsers and serializers for the expected representation format identified by the Internet Media Type can also be shared across these generic protocol stacks.

In some cases, where no aspects can be shared, the Protocol Binding is more comparable to a platform-specific driver that is selected and configured through the communication metadata in similar way as above.

See WoT Binding Templates for details.

6.5 System API

The implementation of a Thing may access local hardware or system services (e.g. storage) through proprietary APIs or other means. This block is out of scope of WoT standardization.

A WoT Runtime may provide local hardware or system services to application scripts through the Thing abstraction, as if they were accessible over a network protocol. In this case the implementation should be optimized to avoid the overhead that would be involved in a literal implementation of a network protocol while maintaining a consistent WoT Interface. The details of such "System Things" are out of the scope of standardization at present, although W3C WoT will document several informational examples.

A device may be physically external to a Servient, but connected via proprietary protocols. In this case, the implemented runtime environment may access legacy devices with such protocols (e.g., Echonet Lite, X10, I2C, SPI) through proprietary APIs, but again exposes them to applications as Things through the Scripting API. A script can then act as gateway to the legacy devices. This should only be done if the legacy device cannot be described using the WoT Thing Description.

6.6 WoT in the Web Browser

Editor's note

This section is an early outline to realize WoT with the existing browser APIs. More details and a native WoT integration into the Web browser will be added as the WG drafts progress.

Figure 13 Implementing WoT in the Web Browser shows how a Servient implementation for Web browsers would look like.

Figure 13 Implementing WoT in the Web Browser

The Web browser implicitly isolates applications in tabs using the same-origin policy. Thus, the security metadata is not mandatory. The application scripts would be part of a Web page that can provide visualization and user interaction.

The WoT Scripting API needs to be added by a WoT library loaded together with the application scripts by the Web page. This library would also implement TD handling (i.e., parsing for consuming Things and generating for exposing Things) and provide glue code to use the browser APIs. The other aspects of the WoT Runtime are provided by the browser JavaScript runtime system.

The Protocol Bindings are limited to the protocols implemented by Web browsers. These are:

The other browser APIs (e.g., Geolocation, Vibration, and Web Storage) are comparable to the System API of normal Servients and can enable access to local hardware.

7. WoT Deployment Scenarios and Guidelines

There are many possibilities for deploying the abstract WoT Architecture and mapping the functions to physical devices and network structures. This section, which is informative but not normative, lists a number of design patterns that may be used when implementing the Web of Things.

7.1 WoT Client

Figure 14 Servient Consuming Thing

Figure 14 Servient Consuming Thing shows the basic scenario, where a Servient in client role, a WoT Client, is consuming an existing device that is augmented with a Thing Description (TD). The latter could be generated from digital descriptions already available for the device within the corresponding the IoT Platform. It could also be written by a developer using tools or even manually.

The Application Script is loaded and executed by the WoT Runtime. Scripts can be manually configured with the URI of the device TD located on a reachable Web server. Using the WoT object, the Application Script retrieves the TD and instantiates a corresponding Consumed Thing. The Application Script can use the metadata of the Thing and inspect what Interactions it provides. The communication metadata within the TD is used by the Servient to select the matching Protocol Binding and to configure its protocol stack. These communication details are hidden from the Application Script. However, the script can only interact with the Thing, if the Servient implements a Protocol Binding that matches the communication metadata given in the TD.

Using the Client API (i.e., ConsumedThing interface), the Application Script can read or write a Property, invoke an Action, or subscribe for Events offered by the Thing. The selected Protocol Binding maps these Interactions to the low-level protocol operations and serializations understood by the remote Thing. When a message is returned by the Thing, the Protocol Binding parses the response and maps it back to the Interaction abstraction. The Interaction output is delivered back to the Application Script by resolving a (JavaScript) Promise.

Editor's note

Each sub-section shall describe the technical details to realize the scenario. They shall describe how to discover the involved WoT components, how to realize connectivity, and what security mechanisms can be used. For now, the draft only contains strawman proposals and placeholders that will be replaced as the draft progresses.

  • Manual (Application Script is configured with TD URI)
  • Local over (W)LAN or LPWANs (ZigBee, Z-Wave, etc.)
  • Remote over globally reachable IP address of the Thing
  • Security metadata to sandbox the Application Script
  • Access control implemented on the Thing
  • Integrity protection when retrieving the TD
  • Potentially confidentiality and integrity protection when interacting with the Thing

7.2 Servient on Device

Figure 15 Servient on Device Itself

In this case, a Servient is running on the device itself. The right most Servient in Figure 15 Servient on Device Itself shows an LED Light, whose controller has a powerful CPU and a large memory and is able to provide web server functionality connected directly to the Internet. Then the leftmost browser and/or another application on the internet can access the LED light through the Internet directly.

Figure 16 Resource-constrained Device as Thing

Devices that are not powerful enough to host a Servient can still act as Things. In this case, a classic firmware is providing a Thing Description that describes the functionality and protocols implemented. The right most Servient in Figure 16 Resource-constrained Device as Thing shows an legacy device has a constraint CPU and a small memory and is able to provide web server functionality connected directly to the internet. Then the leftmost browser and/or another application on the internet can access the device through the internet directly like Figure 15 Servient on Device Itself.

  • WoT Client discovers Servient on the same network [network discovery].
  • (W)LAN
  • LPWANs (ZigBee, Z-Wave, etc.)
  • t.b.d.

7.3 Servient on Smartphone

This example uses a Servient running on a Smartphone. Smartphones are not only popular but have enough performance to provide gateway functionality. This functionality can be used to bridge between the internet and a legacy device without any intermediate hardware.

Figure 17 Servient on Smartphone

Figure 17 Servient on Smartphone shows an example of a Servient on a smartphone, which can act as a gateway to existing devices (e.g., via Bluetooth or local Wi-Fi). The Web browser with the user interface can either run on the smartphone directly or remotely on a separate device (such as a laptop).

  • WoT Client discovers an electronic appliance when the remote controller is nearby [nearby discovery].
  • WoT Client discovers Servient remotely when the remote controller is outside [remote discovery].
  • t.b.d.
  • t.b.d.

7.4 Servient on Gateway

Figure 18 Servient on Gateway

Figure 18 Servient on Gateway shows an example of a Servient on a gateway. Gateway are often introduced as a home automation and/or home energy management solution. In the case of consumer electronics, there are very wide variety of physical communication formats such as WiFi, 802.15.4g, Bluetooth Low Energy, HDPLC and so on. In order to normalize those variations, almost all home automation systems introduce a gateway. In Figure 18 Servient on Gateway, a Servient wraps various mechanisms for communicating with legacy devices and provides to other clients a universal device accessing method. Inside the home, HTTP/TCP/IP/WiFi can then be used as the sole unified communication method between the Servient on the gateway and a user interface device such as a Web browser.

  • Servient discovers electronic appliances nearby [nearby discovery].
  • WoT Client discovers Servient remotely [remote discovery].
  • t.b.d.
  • t.b.d.

7.5 Servient on Cloud and Gateway

Client Apps can control devices at home through a Servient on a gateway. But in this case the location of client apps is restricted to the home, because physical communication path "WiFi" and/or wired Ethernet between gateway and client apps such as a Web browser is limited to the physical domain provided by the WiFi signal. To provide for controlling devices at home from outside the house, a HTTP/TCP/IP interface to a Servient running in the cloud with a globally reachable address could be used. However, in this case the Servient in the cloud cannot generally access devices running in the home through only local interfaces such as Bluetooth.

Figure 19 Servient on Cloud Server and Gateway

Figure 19 Servient on Cloud Server and Gateway shows an example of Servient running on a cloud server paired with another Servient running on a gateway. In the case of Figure 19 Servient on Cloud Server and Gateway, a browser accesses the Servient on the cloud Server named "Cloud". This Servient provides its interface through the Internet globally. So, wherever a browser user is, they can access this Servient. The Servient on "Cloud" can accept the request of the browser and/or other application through HTTP, CoAP, and so on. Then the Servient on the cloud server finds out the route to access another Servient on the gateway. After finding out the route, the Servient on the cloud server transfers the request from the browser to the Servient on the gateway. After that, the gateway processes the request according the Figure 18 Servient on Gateway use case. The Thing Description of the Servient on the cloud server can be just a mirror of that on the gateway, since it will generally just pass interactions directly through. More generally, though, one or both Servients can provide services such as privacy filtering or sub-setting. When the user is home, they can also access the Servient in the gateway directly.

  • Servient discovers WoT Server remotely [remote discovery].
  • WoT Client discovers Servient remotely [remote discovery].
  • t.b.d.
  • t.b.d.

7.6 Servient on Cloud Server

Figure 20 Servient on Cloud Server Only

Figure 20 Servient on Cloud Server Only shows a second example of Servients in the cloud. In this case, a browser accesses a Servient on a cloud server, similar to Figure 19 Servient on Cloud Server and Gateway. This Servient provides access through the global Internet. So, wherever the browser user is, they can access this Servient. The cloud Servient accepts the requests of the browser and/or other applications through HTTP, CoAP, etc. Then it finds out the route to access a proprietary discovery service running on a gateway. In Figure 19 Servient on Cloud Server and Gateway, the Servient running in the cloud could talk to another Servient running on the gateway. However, many service providers have already provided IoT services using proprietary IoT interfaces or some other IoT standard. In this case, the gateway can still support the same functionalities, as in the previous case, but using methods outside of the WoT definitions.

  • Servient1 discovers Servient2 remotely [remote discovery].
  • Servient2 discovers electronic appliances nearby [nearby discovery].
  • WoT Client discovers Servient1 remotely [remote discovery].
  • t.b.d.
  • t.b.d.

8. Security and Privacy Considerations

Editor's note

Security and privacy considerations are still under discussion and development; the content below should be considered preliminary. Due to the complexity of the subject we are considering producing a separate document containing a detailed security and privacy considerations discussion including a risk analysis, threat model, recommended mitigations, and appropriate references to best practices. A summary will be included here. Work in progress is located in the WoT Security and Privacy repository. Please file any security or privacy considerations and/or concerns using the GitHub Issue feature.

Security is a cross-cutting issue that needs to be taken into account in all WoT building blocks. The W3C WoT does not define any new security mechanisms, but provides guidelines to apply the best practices from Web security, IoT security, and information security for general software and hardware considerations.

The WoT Thing Description must be used together with integrity protection mechanisms and access control policies. Users must ensure that no sensitive information is included in the TDs themselves.

The WoT Binding Templates must correctly cover the security mechanisms employed by the underlying IoT Platform. Due to the automation of network interactions necessary in the IoT, operators need to ensure that Things are exposed and consumed in a way that is compliant with their security policies.

The WoT Runtime implementation for the WoT Scripting API must have mechanisms to prevent malicious access to the system and isolate scripts in multi-tenant Servients.

9. Summary

An abstract architecture for the Web of Things and a functional architecture for Servients has been introduced. It is based on WoT building blocks, which are to be covered by additional WoT specifications:

Of these, the WoT Thing Description is the primary building block, as it describes the network-facing interface of a Thing ( WoT Interface), whether or not it uses WoT Binding Templates or the WoT Scripting API internally. The implementation of WoT Binding Templates results in multiple possible Protocol Bindings, so that a Thing can communicate with different IoT Platforms (i.e., IoT ecosystems or standards). When a Thing uses the WoT Scripting API internally, its application logic can be programmed against a standardized contract using JavaScript. This way, it simplifies IoT application development and enables portability across vendors and WoT network components.

The architecture described here applies well to a wide variety of different use cases. Based on these, we have described several scenarios where one or more Servients were used together to overcome, for instance, limitations on the reach of specific communication protocols. These examples are not exhaustive and are only meant to illustrate the applicability and flexibility of the WoT approach.

A. Acknowledgements

Special thanks to all active Participants of the W3C Web of Things Interest Group and Working Group for their technical input and suggestions that led to improvements to this document.

B. References

B.1 Normative references

HTML5. Ian Hickson; Robin Berjon; Steve Faulkner; Travis Leithead; Erika Doyle Navara; Theresa O'Connor; Silvia Pfeiffer. W3C. 28 October 2014. W3C Recommendation. URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/
JSON-LD 1.0. Manu Sporny; Gregg Kellogg; Markus Lanthaler. W3C. 16 January 2014. W3C Recommendation. URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/
The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2. T. Dierks; E. Rescorla. IETF. August 2008. Proposed Standard. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246
IP Security (IPsec) and Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Document Roadmap. S. Frankel; S. Krishnan. IETF. February 2011. Informational. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6071
Known Issues and Best Practices for the Use of Long Polling and Streaming in Bidirectional HTTP. S. Loreto; P. Saint-Andre; S. Salsano; G. Wilkins. IETF. April 2011. Informational. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6202
Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2. E. Rescorla; N. Modadugu. IETF. January 2012. Proposed Standard. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6347
The WebSocket Protocol. I. Fette; A. Melnikov. IETF. December 2011. Proposed Standard. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455
The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework. D. Hardt, Ed.. IETF. October 2012. Proposed Standard. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6749
Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures. N. Freed; J. Klensin; T. Hansen. IETF. January 2013. Best Current Practice. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing. R. Fielding, Ed.; J. Reschke, Ed.. IETF. June 2014. Proposed Standard. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230
Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2). M. Belshe; R. Peon; M. Thomson, Ed.. IETF. May 2015. Proposed Standard. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540
File Transfer Protocol specification. J. Postel. IETF. June 1980. Unknown. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc765
Use Cases for Authentication and Authorization in Constrained Environments. L. Seitz, Ed.; S. Gerdes, Ed.; G. Selander; M. Mani; S. Kumar. IETF. January 2016. Informational. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7744
WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Browsers. Adam Bergkvist; Daniel Burnett; Cullen Jennings; Anant Narayanan; Bernard Aboba; Taylor Brandstetter. W3C. 22 August 2017. W3C Working Draft. URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/

B.2 Informative references

CoRE Resource Directory. IETF. 03 July 2017. Internet-Draft. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-11