aaaaaaproject periodic reportaaaaaa - cordis · on received feedback, this essential chap-ter has...

aaaaaaPROJECT PERIODIC REPORTaaaaaa

Grant Agreement number: 257521

Project acronym: IoT-A

Project title: Internet of Things - Architecture

Funding Scheme: IP

Date of latest version of Annex I against which the assessment will be made: 26September 2012

Periodic Report 1st � 2nd � 3rd �X 4th �

Period Covered: from: 1 September 2013 to: 1 December 2013

Name, title and organisation of the scientific representative of the project’scoordinator: Günter Külzhammer, VDIVDE-IT

Tel:

Fax:

e-mail: @vdivde-it.de

Project website address: www.iot-a.eu

1

Ref. Ares(2015)1304336 - 25/03/2015

Declaration by the scientific representative of the project coordinator

I, as scientific representative of the coordinator of this project and in line with theobligations as stated in Article II.2.3 of the Grant Agreement declare that:

• The attached periodic report represents an accurate description of the work carriedout in this project for this reporting period;

• The project (tick as appropriate):

�X has fully achieved its objectives and technical goals for the period;

� has achieved most of its objectives and technical goals for the period withrelatively minor deviations

� has failed to achieve critical objectives and/or is not at all on schedule.

• The public website, if applicable

�X is up to date

� is not up to date

• To my best knowledge, the financial statements which are being submitted as partof this report are in line with the actual work carried out and are consistent with thereport on the resources used for the project (section 3.4) and if applicable with thecertificate on financial statement.

• All beneficiaries, in particular non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher edu-cation establishments, research organisations and SMEs, have declared to haveverified their legal status. Any changes have been reported under section 3.2.3(Project Management) in accordance with Article II.3.f of the Grant Agreement.

Name of scientific representative of the Coordinator: Gunter Kuelzhammer

Date: 16 / 3 / 2015

For most of the projects, the signature of this declaration could be done directly viathe IT reporting tool through an adapted IT mechanism and in that case, no signed paperform needs to be sent

1

Contents

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1 Publishable Summary 31.1 Project Context and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2 Work Performed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2.1 The Architectural Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.2.2 Technological Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.3 Final Results and Potential Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.4 Public Website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 Project objectives, work progress and achievements, project management 82.1 Project objectives for the period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.1.1 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.2 Work Progress and Achievements during the period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.2.1 WP1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.2.2 WP2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182.2.3 WP3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242.2.4 WP4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302.2.5 WP5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352.2.6 WP6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402.2.7 WP7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

2.3 Project Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502.3.1 Project Management during the period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502.3.2 Technical Steering Committee (TSC) meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512.3.3 Plenary Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522.3.4 Changes in the consortium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522.3.5 Payment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522.3.6 IoT-A web-site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

2.4 Deliverables and Milestones Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542.4.1 Milestones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542.4.2 Deliverables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

2.5 Overall use of resources in the IoT-A Consortium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562.5.1 Justification of resources per partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

2

1 | Publishable Summary

1.1. Project Context and Objectives

IoT-A’s overall technical objective is to create the architectural foundations of the FutureInternet of Things, allowing seamless integration of heterogeneous IoT technologies into acoherent architecture and their federation with other systems of the Future Internet. In orderto achieve this ambitious overall goal, IoT-A has identified a series of detailed scientific andtechnological objectives that will be addressed within the context of the project.Scientific and technological objectives of the IoT-A project in general are:

• To provide an architectural reference model for the interoperability of IoT systems,outlining principles and guidelines for the technical design of its protocols, interfacesand algorithms.

• To assess existing IoT protocol suits and derive mechanisms to achieve end-to-endinter-operability for seamless communication between IoT devices.

• To develop modelling tools and a description language for goal-oriented IoT aware(business) process interactions allowing expression of their dependencies for a varietyof deployment models.

• To derive adaptive mechanisms for distributed orchestration of IoT resource interac-tions exposing self-properties in order to deal with the complex dynamics of real worldenvironments.

• To holistically embed effective and efficient security and privacy mechanisms into IoTdevices and the protocols and services they utilise.

• To develop a novel resolution infrastructure for the IoT, allowing scalable look up anddiscovery of IoT resources, entities of the real world and their associations.

• To develop IoT device platform components including device hardware and run-timeenvironment.

• To validate the architectural reference model against the derived requirements with theimplementation of real life use cases that demonstrate the benefits of the developedsolutions.

3

• To contribute to the dissemination and exploitation of the developed architectural foun-dations.

The subsequent chapters will detail the work of the different work packages and furtherdemonstrate the efforts of the partners.

1.2. Work Performed

The IoT-A project had 2 main development axis: a vertical one, from a Reference Model toa Concrete Architecture that could be useful to build a real system, and a horizontal one,developing different technologies and bridging existing developments in the IoT domain.

1.2.1. The Architectural Reference Model

Figure 1.1: The Architectural ReferenceModel

The results in this area are described in thetwo deliverables D1.4 and D1.5, and in thebook ”Enabling things To Talk”. Major im-provements are in the Information views, theintroduction of Management within Func-tional model and Functional view; the Com-munication model was reshaped; Existingviews (Functional Decomposition, Informa-tion view) of the Reference Architecture(Chapter 4) have been improved and com-pleted. Major improvement of the existingDeployment and Operation view has beenalso brought; Some content (interfaces) hasbeen moved out to appendixes in order toimprove readability.

Figure 1.2: The Set of Models composing theIoT-A Reference Model

The last year of ARM development had avery high focus on methodology aspect re-lying on the two already quite stable otherparts of the ARM: RA and RM and overallARM structure in term of models, views andperspectives. As a result, and also basedon received feedback, this essential chap-ter has considerably grown (improvement ofthe few existing sub-sections and brand newones) and improved in readability, and pro-vides in D1.5 lot of information on many as-pects of developing a concrete architectureout of the IoT ARM.The update of the glossary is an ongoingactivity that was initiated in the previous re-

4

porting period. It received constant mainte-nance and can be found in the latest versionat http://www.iot-a.eu/public/terminology.

1.2.2. Technological Development

The IoT-A project developed a way for an Orchestration and Integration of the IoT Architec-tural Reference Model into the Future Internet Service Layer. Key innovations coming fromthis area are the modelling of IoT-aware processes, the orchestration and management ofcollaborations of IoT resources and services, and mechanisms for distributed event correla-tion and synchronisation across heterogeneous systems.Regarding the Communication domain, deliverable D3.6 illustrated the design of the finalprotocol suite for IoT. At first, in Section 2 we define useful terms, classify network andterminal types (especially in terms of their capabilities / resources) and discuss revenantconstraints. In Section 3 we define relevant network scenarios that entail the communicationof IoT devices within constrained domains as well as through the Internet thanks to theexploitation of suitable IoT Gateways.

PHY

Link

Network

Transport

M2M

IDAdaptation &

Awareness

Static

Profile

Group

Security

Management

EAP PANA

report

configure

Bootstrapping

& Authentication

Identity and Key Management

AuthZ

Mgt.

Collaborative Actions Mgt.

local trust

manager

other

nodes

protocol

layer APIs

Routing

Security

Figure 1.3: IoT-A Protocol Stack

Section 4 contains the description of theproposed protocol architecture, includingthe general diagrams pertaining to the in-volved actors and the foreseen interactionsamong them, the description of each proto-col component, along with the related net-working and security procedures. Note thatour protocol design takes into account thecurrent developments that are being car-ried out by the scientific community as wellas by relevant standardisation committeessuch as IETF. Hence, we are fully alignedwith these and we include them in our de-sign. In addition to this, we provide novelfeatures that complement and improve existing IoT technology.These technological advancements are discussed in the following three sections of the deliv-erable. These are centred on the setup of end-to-end and secure communication channelsthrough lightweight and possibly cooperative means and the design of novel transport layerprotocols, specifically designed for constrained domains.The project completed the implementation of typical instances of the previously investi-gated architectures for discovering services using geo-location, semantic web and feder-ation based approaches and for looking up and resolving service IDs using a DHT-basedP2P approach, which were all evaluated individually in D4.4. The geo-location, seman-tic web and DHT-based P2P approach were also integrated, jointly evaluated as shown inD4.4, and provided to WP7, so key functionality could be shown as part of the demonstratoruse cases. In addition VTT provided a separate implementation of the key identification,service look-up and discovery functionalities based on the uID and M3 infrastructures re-

5

spectively based on partially different design choices, in particular a data-centric approachwith services providing information about multiple physical entities.The project developed new hardware components, called NXP Blueboard and FlexboardReader Gateways. These devices host a programmable microcontroller and may act as aNFC/RFID/PC bridge. This device can easily be extended by other interfaces since it offersa flexible hardware interface and a software development kit. Thus, this device may act asa point of trust that is independent from a PC or smart phone. The first prototypes wereshipped to partners in WP7 to be integrated in the health use case.

1.3. Final Results and Potential Impact

The IoT ARM was developed to provide support for IoT system architects and developersto build IoT systems on a common basis, ensuring interoperability between IoT systemsOne of the key benefits is the business performance. By means of desk research differenthypotheses regarding architecture benefits have been identified. These hypotheses have tobe evaluated against economic relevance.The goals of the IoT ARM are to provide a cognitive aid, a common grounding for the IoTfield through the Reference Model, a basis for architecture generation through the usageof a Reference Architecture together with Guidelines and to achieve interoperability. Thisis associated with revealing the basic functional components and the interfaces betweenthem. After using the IoT ARM to understand the ”big picture” of an IoT system, a concretearchitecture can be derived more easily which serves as architecture for a system imple-mentation. The expectation is that this setup will reduce the risk and cost of implementingnew IoT systems, by facilitating the use of standard components in a ”plug-and-play” mode.Consequently, the stated vision is that IoT architects will develop IoT systems that are com-pliant with the IoT ARM, making the job of an IoT system integrator easier, quicker, and lessrisky.

Figure 1.4: Potential Reduction in cost by IoT-A ARM usage

IoT-A envisions an information-shared worldbetween heterogeneous firms. The poten-tial for new business value based on theDIKW (data, information, knowledge, wis-dom) generated by IoT is huge, opening thepossibility of new technologies and servicesthat take advantage of this new content. Itis therefore of interest to identify the typesof key players who could take advantage ofthese possibilities, and where they could fitin a future IoT ecosystem. Value chain anal-ysis can address this problem. The idea ofthe value chain can be described as a chainof activities undertaken by a firm in order todeliver a valuable product or service to themarket, and was described by Porter. Ap-plied originally to singular firms in the domain of logistics and retail, the idea has thereafter

6

been extended beyond the firm level. This extended value chain model also describes therole of other firms in a wider ecosystem of value generation. The original model has alsobeen applied to other domains like health care.

1.4. Public Website

The address of the public web site is: www.iot-a.eu

7

2 | Project objectives, work progress andachievements, project management

2.1. Project objectives for the period

IoT-A’s overall technical objective is to create the architectural foundations of the FutureInternet of Things, allowing seamless integration of heterogeneous IoT technologies into acoherent architecture and their federation with other systems of the Future Internet. In orderto achieve this ambitious overall goal, IoT-A has identified a series of detailed scientific andtechnological objectives that will be addressed within the context of the project.

• To provide an architectural reference model for the interoperability of IoT sys-tems, outlining principles and guidelines for the technical design of its protocols, in-terfaces and algorithms. Today there exists no widely agreed upon understanding ofan architecture of the Internet of Things, making an interoperability of different IoTsystem very difficult. IoT-A will establish an architectural reference model, providingfoundations to build upon, such as unified protocols and protocol stacks and machine-to-machine (M2M) interfaces. Access of current and future designers on IoT protocolsand system functions will be provided through particular guidance that IoT-A will offer,in form of system calls and architecture interfaces description, so that they are able todevelop their solutions in an interoperable manner.

• To assess existing IoT protocol suits and derive mechanisms to achieve end-to-end inter-operability for seamless communication between IoT devices. The IoTwill consist of devices with diverse communication stacks. IoT-A will enable seamlesscommunication flows between heterogeneous devices, hiding the complexity of theend-to-end heterogeneity from the communication service. This goal will be pursuedwith the design, implementation and demonstration of unified translation mechanismsbetween technology-specific boundaries via M2M interfaces, whereby service accom-modation will become transparent, using a single programming interface for communi-cating with the connected IoT.

• To develop modelling tools and a description language for goal-oriented IoTaware (business) process interactions allowing expression of their dependen-cies for a variety of deployment models. Current description languages are notsuitable to describe interactions between services offered by IoT devices. IoT-A will de-velop such description language, and corresponding tools, considering the constraints

8

and particularities of IoT environments, which is essential for seamless integration ofthe IoT into the service layer of the FI. Furthermore, this description language will haveto represent abstractly the resources and the communication requirements of IoT sothat they can be seamlessly integrated in the overall IoT-A architecture without resort-ing to internal component alterations.

• To derive adaptive mechanisms for distributed orchestration of IoT resource in-teractions exposing self-* properties in order to deal with the complex dynam-ics of real world environments. Current orchestration mechanisms are mainly cen-tralised and have difficulties dealing with high real world dynamics. An IoT-A will de-rive mechanisms that ensure interactions will continue to persist and autonomouslyadapt in a distributed manner to a variety of system dynamics such as mobility andchanging availability of IoT devices. Distributed orchestration will be realised in form oflight-weight decentralized mechanisms, which in the light of the often severe resourceconstraints of devices, the scalability requirements and the changing user behaviourwill act autonomously and in a self-organized but concerted manner to ensure servicecontinuity.

• To holistically embed effective and efficient security and privacy mechanismsinto IoT devices and the protocols and services they utilise. Privacy and securityare major concerns, in particular to EU citizen. An IoT-A will ensure that appropriatemechanisms are deeply embedded in the IoT architecture, covering the hardware ofits devices, communication and interaction protocols and the information level. Toimplement this goal IoT-A will extensively investigate and take into account serviceprivacy and IoT access security aspects throughout the architecture design activitiesdealing with service accommodation, identification and IoT-A platform realisations.

• To develop a novel resolution infrastructure for the IoT, allowing scalable lookup and discovery of IoT resources, entities of the real world and their associ-ations. Today there are different identification and addressing schemes for differentIoT technologies and separate resolution infrastructures for each of them. IoT-A willdevelop a novel resolution infrastructure that can deal with the heterogeneity of exist-ing schemes. Beyond simple lookup, the discovery of suitable IoT resources based onconcepts of the physical world has to be supported. A suitable higher-level abstractionfor interacting with the real world is that of a real world entity. The IoT-A resolutioninfrastructure will manage these associations dynamically and support the lookup anddiscovery of IoT resources based on real world entities. It will be able to resolve namesand identities to addresses and locators used by communication services, thereby en-abling cross-layer communication between IoT resources, services and applications.

• To develop IoT device platform components including device hardware and run-time environment. IoT-A will develop key components required for the IoT deviceplatform on which a future Internet of Things will be based, providing a basis for theresearch community to build upon. Availability of the desired functionality to enablesmooth realisation of the IoT-A architecure, will be investigated and design and de-velopment of hardware/software missing components will be taken over. Work will

9

evolve along the issues of energy efficiency, security and authentication, privacy ofuser services and cryptography of low level interfaces and run-time environment forend-devices and hub components.

• To validate the architectural reference model against the derived requirementswith the implementation of real life use cases that demonstrate the benefits ofthe developed solutions. The principles of rough consensus and running code inthe Internet research community have been key to Internet’s current success. IoT-Ais committed to experimentally evaluate its solutions and to demonstrate the feasibilityof its concepts and the resulting benefits on real life use cases.This goal will be madepossible through the organisation and realisation of a number of use-cases for health,home and logistics applications.

• To contribute to the dissemination and exploitation of the developed architec-tural foundations. The success of an architecture not only depends on its technicalmerits but on its adoption by the community at large. IoT-A has implemented a va-riety of different strategic means to ensure the acceptance and adequate impact ofits results. These means are underpinned on the implementation of a detailed scien-tific dissemination plan, addressing the largest scientific conferences and journals thatcoincide with the project lifecycle and the exploitation plans of the industrial partners.

2.1.1. Recommendations

R1: Devote a particular section in the next Activity Report as to how the reviewers’ recom-mendations are taken into account in the WPs affected by these recommendations.

R2: Try to identify, maintain, advertise and disseminate (preferably in journal publicationswith very high impact factor) a list of ”breakthrough achievements”. Already now tryto organise a massive PR-like effort regarding the demonstrations of the use-cases.Define and implement an impact-creating activities plan.

R3: Define how you will measure the impact of the project along a few but important di-mensions. For example, how readily the ARM (together with the design guidelines) isaccepted and used by the other projects in the IERC is an indication for its applicabil-ity across application domains and IoT-related technologies. For other impact-relateddimensions see the section on WP8.

R4: IoT-A user requirements process has been significantly improved since the 1st period.However, the final Deliverable on Requirements should constitute the benchmark inthe area. Therefore, an improvement over some areas is desirable. In particular:

• traceability of requirements

• clarity of the requirements (with particular regards to wording)

• disambiguity of the requirement (in other words, if it refers to the reference archi-tecture, to a specific architecture)

10

• if (and where) a specific requirement is reflected in a Use Case, and how.

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE REVIEW:

1. Implementation of the 2 use cases must be completed with as many high-impactscenes as possible.

a. Consider some of the ARM perspectives and illustrate them in the use cases;security and fault tolerance are very important.

2. Finalising ARM and preparing the ”Cookbook”1

a. Cookbook should include detailed description, step-by-step instructions, on howto build an IoT-A based application using the ARM and the outputs from WP2 ÐWP5.

b. The cookbook should include as examples the development of the 2 use cases.

c. The cookbook should contain valuable, practical answers to the implementationof the ARM perspectives/views: e.g., scalability (how to add 10.000 sensors),security, system integrity, robustness, governance.

3. Expand the stakeholder group for the purpose of: 2

a. Generating awareness amongst decision makers (public, private, consortium part-ners, and consumer interest groups).

b. Take-up (e.g. increase the number of demo deployments).

4. Come up with a strategy for the long term sustainability of the major IoT-A outputs 3

a. A joint exploitation plan is a natural part of it.

b. Eco-system description with a mapping between the value chain and consortiumpartners/external actors should be provided.

1The future IoT ”cookbook” must report on ”how we have done things in practice”’ pros and cons, and ”howto do it” sections with practical guidelines on how to set up IoT scenarios and the underlying infrastructures forconcrete examples. This guidelines need to be mapped to existent approaches in other ICT domains, such asmobile systems, internet-based service architectures etc., covering the similarity of the approaches/conceptsand the integration aspects. All individual components need to be placed into the overall architecture, deliveringstep-by-step guidelines on how to establish an IoT system using IoT-A concepts and elements.

2Stakeholder group needs to be extended and diversified. If the IoT-A is to succeed, its recognition iscrucial in different domains and sectors, and its development must follow requirements of statistical validity.Actions must be taken to attract more stakeholders from different businesses, sectors (municipalities, industry,academia, etc.), and grass-roots community must be addressed. End-user requirements must be considerednext to business requirements.

3The exploitation plans are far from being mature Ð there are more intentions and not so many specificcommitments. Exploitation plan needs to be improved to reflect not only more concrete plans and steps takenby individual partners towards commercialisation and standardisation of the results, but also the plans for theconsortium as a whole. For example, companies may take up specific technologies but who will maintain andfurther develop the ARM, the requirements; who will keep alive the demonstration environments and enrichthem further

11

c. A convincing cost-benefit analysis at least of the 2 use cases is also an essentialpart of it.

URGENT TASKS:

5. Prepare an improved 3rd year ACTION PLAN that shall contain:

a. Detailed steps & milestones and expected results in respect to the above priori-ties.

b. Detailed plan for use case implementation, plan for stakeholder involvement anddissemination.

c. Action plan should realistically consider time, financial and resource aspects.

2.2. Work Progress and Achievements during the period

2.2.1. WP1

2.2.1.1 Summary of progress towards objectives and details for each task

During Year 3, WP1 completed two major deliverables:

2.2.1.1.1 D1.4: Converged Architectural Reference Model for the IoT v2.0: This de-liverable came shortly (M26) after D1.3 which was released in M22 (Year 2). D1.3 and D1.4make altogether the ARMv2. While D1.3 had a stronger focus on a. the handling of all feed-back received after the D1.2 dissemination, b. the RA with the introduction of new views andPerspectives and c. a first initial version of the Guidance chapter, D1.4 has been completingthis second iteration of the ARM, leveraging on D1.3 and bringing critical improvement toD1.3:

• Major improvement of the Information views that now shows how information flowsamong the Functional Components;

• Getting into account feedback received from D1.3 dissemination

• Introduction of Management within Functional model and Functional view;

• Re-organization of the Design Choices section to improve usability;

• Reverse mapping from existing IoT architectures (like ETSI M2M, EPCglobal and uCode)towards IoT-A Reference model, in order to check completeness of our approach;

• Major improvement of Appendix C;

• Improvement of the soundness of the whole ARM approach, emphasizing the logicallinks existing between the various models of the Reference models and the views andperspectives of the Reference Architecture

12

2.2.1.1.2 D1.5: Final Architectural Reference Model v3.0 : This deliverable is the ulti-mate result from WP1, it is the fully complete ARM v3 description. It is also the starting pointfor the ”Enabling Things to Talk” Springer book. it leverages on D1.4 bringing the followingimprovements:

• Feedback received internally from IoT-A and externally from IoT experts and IERC clus-ter members (in the context of the Activity Chain on ÒIoT architectureÓ), was takeninto account in order to improve the document and in order to make sure that the IoT-Aarchitecture work will eventually meet expectations and consensus from the externalusers; All chapters of the document were touched by that feedback and therefore up-dated consequently;

• Improvements in the Reference Model (Chapter 3) and in particular in the Communi-cation Model which was reshaped;

• Existing views (Functional Decomposition, Information view) of the Reference Archi-tecture (Chapter 4) have been improved and completed. Major improvement of theexisting Deployment and Operation view has been also brought; Some content (inter-faces) has been moved out to appendixes in order to improve readability;

• Some new functional component dealing with brokerage of event and publish/subscribehas been introduced also in the Functional Decomposition;

• In the Reference Architecture, large improvement of Communication FG;

• Chapter 5 on Guidance (formerly called Best Practices) has been completed and inparticular provides an in-depth introduction on how to use the document in order to de-rive a domain-specific architecture from the ARM (”Process” and ”Reference Manuals”sections). It also provides a more complete list of design choices and explains howto deal with events (as encapsulating information into an event is a design choice forhandling propagation of information throughout the system). Section on typical interac-tions taking place not only inside on Functionality Group (FG), but also among differentFGs was added;

• A small scenario is introduced in the Introduction (Section 2.3). This scenario is usedalong all chapters and sections of the documents as a ”red thread” for illustrating thedifferent models and views of the IoT ARM. The reader can therefore improve his globalunderstanding of the ARM and its concepts, and make better connections betweenthe different chapters/sections, because he can relate new concepts to a concreterecurring scenario he already knows;

• Finally, the global readability of the document has been improved. Chapters 3, 4 and5 now look more like standalone chapters with an introduction that reminds previouschapters and context;

13

2.2.1.1.3 Task 1.1, Development of the IoT Reference Model T1.1, led by SAP, ad-dresses the development and iterative revisions of the Reference Model which is the firstcore component of the Architectural Reference Model. IoT-A follows a spiral approach tothe development of the Reference Model with continuous activities for most of its sub-tasks.As a consequence of this approach, most of its sub-tasks were being worked on within thereporting period except for T1.1.2 (SOTA analysis) which finished in the first reporting period.

T1.1.1 - IoT glossary The update of the glossary is an ongoing activity that was initiatedin the previous reporting period. It received constant maintenance and can be found in thelatest version at http://www.iot-a.eu/public/terminology.

T1.1.2 - SOTA Analysis This task was finished in Year 1, and was consequently nottouched in Year 3

T1.1.3 - Requirement Analysis The task was completed in Year 2 and therefore was nottouched in Year 3. The list of unified requirements was actually updated and fine tuned butin the context of WP6.

T1.1.4 - Reference Model This sub-task is the core activity of T1.1 and the following ac-tivities too place in order to complete the RM part of the ARM: Complete reshaping of theCommunication Model; Improvement of the Trust Security ad Privacy model; Introduction ofthe Management the Functional Model; Fine-tuning of Domain Model according to receivedfeedback Introduction of the "Read Thread" example in order to illustrate the different modelson a concrete small example (logistic scenario)

T1.1.5 - Cross Checks During Year 3 we kept on receiving comments and feedback af-ter D1.3 and D1.4 dissemination (IoT week, external experts, IERC Activity Chain #1) thisfeedback led to many very focused updates in both D1.3 and D1.4. Some more generalfeedback helped us to improve the readability, consistency of the document (in particularwith the introduction of the "Red Thread" example used to illustrate the various aspects ofthe ARM).

2.2.1.1.4 Task 1.2, Development of the IoT Reference Architecture This task, led byALU-BE, within the Year 3 reporting period accomplished a major iteration of the develop-ment of the Reference Architecture (RA), leading to the final version of the RA.

T1.2.1 - SOTA Analysis This task was completed in Year 1 and therefore was not touchedin Year 3

T1.2.2 - Requirement Analysis The task was completed in Year 2 and therefore was nottouched in Year 3. The list of unified requirements was actually updated and fine tuned butin the context of WP6.

14

T1.2.3 - Reference Architecture This sub-task is the core activity of T1.2 and the followingactivities too place in order to complete the RA part of the ARM:

• Completion of existing views;

• Large improvement of Management and Communication Functionality Groups in Func-tional View

• Major improvement of Appendix C

• Introduction of the "Read Thread" example in order to illustrate the different models ona concrete small example (logistic scenario)

T1.2.4 - Cross-Check During Year 3 we kept on receiving comments and feedback afterD1.3 and D1.4 dissemination (IoT week, external experts, IERC Activity Chain #1). Thisfeedback led to many very focused updates in both D1.4 and D1.5. Some more generalfeedback helped us to improve the readability, consistency of the document (in particularwith the introduction of the "Red Thread" example used to illustrate the various aspects ofthe ARM)

2.2.1.1.5 Task 1.3, Best practice and methodologies The last year of ARM develop-ment had a very high focus on methodology aspect relying on the two already quite stableother parts of the ARM: RA and RM and overall ARM structure in term of models, viewsand perspectives. This work was led by SIEMENS. As a result, and also based on receivedfeedback, this essential chapter has considerably grown (improvement of the few existingsub-sections and brand new ones) and improved in readability, and provides in D1.5 lot ofinformation on many aspects of developing a concrete architecture out of the IoT ARM. Thischapter includes:

• a complete methodology for deriving an architecture;

• a comprehensive and large example;

• Reference manual on how to use models and perspectives;

• few examples of interaction diagram (between Functional Components) applied e.g. tomanagement/auto-config and Resolution/Lookup;

• reverse-mappings of existing IoT architectures towards the ARM;

• a large initial collection of design choices;

2.2.1.1.6 Task 1.4, Security analysis of the IoT Architectural Reference Model Task1.4, led by Università Sapienza, has contributed to D1.5 by providing a complete reshapingof the Trust, Security and Privacy model in the Reference Model.

15

2.2.1.2 Highlight clearly significant results

The work package entails the following detailed objectives:

O1.1: Provide an architectural reference model for the IoT in an iterative way, allowing seam-less integration of heterogeneous IoT technologies into a coherent model and archi-tectures and their federation with other systems of the Future Internet. The refinementprocess will be based on detailed design choices, implementation, and evaluation ex-perience from WP2 to WP5.

O1.2: Provide guidelines for the design of service functions and interfaces, underlying proto-col solutions, information models, and device technologies to fulfill the requirements ofthe envisaged IoT.

O1.3: Develop best practice and methodologies for a smooth and fast take-up of the IoT-AArchitectural Reference Model (ARM) into concrete systems and architectures.

During the third year WP1 has produced in an iterative way two deliverables (D1.4 and D1.5)which collectively contributed to the three objective above.

• D1.4: ”Converged Architectural Reference Model for the IoT v2”, Released in MidMonth 27, Due Month 26This internal report coordinated by SAP with contribution from ALL WP1

• D1.5: ’Updated Reference Model for IoT v3” Released in Month 35, due Month 33This deliverable coordinated by UNIS with contribution from ALL WP1

D1.5 was also the basis for the writing of the Springer Book ”Enabling Thing to Talk” whichwas actually not part of the DoW. This book was printed in a large quantity and distributedfreely at the ICT 2013 and at other events.Finally it was decided that the IoT Forum would take over a. the ARM development andsustenance through the WG2 "Architecture and Interop" (Francois Carrez chair.) and b. theIoT Week 2014 (and onward) organisation.

2.2.1.3 Meetings

During the third year we had quite a large number of face-to-face meeting either co-organiszedwith IOTA GA or other global events, or specially organized for WP1 only. We additionallyhad bi-weekly phone call to check upon the work progress and for fine-tuning of work plan-ning.The list of physical meetings is given below:

• 09/08/2012 (Berlin) - Technical Coordination Between UNIS (WP1 lead.) and VDI/VDE-IT

• 04-05/11/2012 (Guildford) - WP1 meeting - Kick-off of D1.5

• 10-12/10/2012 (Berlin) - WP1 Meeting / WP1&6&7 coordination Meeting / TSC Meeting

16

• 04-06/02/2013 (Antwerp) - WP1 Meeting / WP1&6&7 coordination Meeting / TSCMeeting

• 28-30/04/2013 (Roma) - WP1 Meeting

• 16-20/06/2013 (Helsinki) - TSC Meeting / WP1 meeting

• 17/09/2013 (Roma) - TSC Meeting / Vilnius and 3rd PPR preparation

• 05-08/11/2013 (Vilnius) - ICT 2013

• 05-06/12/2013 (Roma) - Final Review

2.2.1.4 Dissemination of results and other collaborations

Opportunities in the third year period for disseminating IOT-A results:

2.2.1.4.1 Public Dissemination The following table illustrates the dissemination eventsto which people involved in WP1 participated.WHEN WHERE WHO WHAT5/13 Meet-up in Sao

Paulo, BrazilAlessandroBassi

ARM Survey

6/13 Advantec, Taiwan Francois Car-rez

IOT-A architecture and next step withinIoT Forum

6/13 IoT Week inHelsinki, Finland

WP1 mem-bers

”Brothers in Arm” session ARM in depthpresentation & next steps through the IoTForum

6/13 Meet-up inHelsinki, Fin-land

AlessandroBassi

ARM Survey

10/13 Meet-up inNewYork, USA

AlessandroBassi

ARM survey

2.2.1.4.2 Publications 2 conference paper accepted

• 1 IEEE journal paper submitted and ongoing

• 1 paper in FIA Book

See WP8 work package description for more details.

2.2.1.4.3 Tutorials Two tutorials were given to new ”Smart City call” projects: CityPulseand COSMOS

17

2.2.1.4.4 IERC Activity Chain 1 ”Architecture” and others

• Sept 2012 in Brussels (AC1)

• Nov 2012 in Regensdorf (AC1)

• Feb 2013 in Delft (AC1)

• Jun 2013 in Helsinki (AC1)

• May 2013 "FI-Ware meeting" in Dublin

• March 2013 with BOSCH

2.2.1.5 Statement on the use of resources, in particular highlighting and explainingdeviation between actual and planned person months

All partners used a level of resources reasonable, given the time frame and the results.The following efforts per partner were spent that are generally in line with the plan andcontributions:Partner Person.Month

(actual)HEU 3,54SIEMENS 14.17HSG 0SAP 7.61UNIS 12FhG IML 4.59CEA 1.42NEC 2.89SUni 5.10CFR 5.30UniWue 2ALBLF 2.17ALU-BE 0VTT 0.9

2.2.2. WP2


WP2 deals with the Orchestration and Integration of the IoT Architectural Reference Modelinto the Future Internet Service Layer. Key innovations coming from this work package arethe modelling of IoT-aware processes, the orchestration and management of collaborationsof IoT resources and services, and mechanisms for distributed event correlation and syn-chronisation across heterogeneous systems.The work package 2 is divided in 5 tasks.

18

2.2.2.1.1 T2.1: Service Interfaces

• Study of the state of the art on the current existing standards and technologies relatedto the sensor and service description areas.

• Definition of a homogeneous IoT resource description that allows to expose the ser-vices they provide in a machine understandable way. The defined resource descriptionmust allow the integration of the currently existing technologies and also the inclusionof the future ones. It should also provide means to express not just the functional-ity provided but also the required information to access to such functionality (like thelocator, communication protocol, etc.).

2.2.2.1.2 T2.2: Orchestration and Management of Distributed Services

• Mechanisms and models for the deployment of services to real-world entities

• Ad-hoc adaption of service consumption and distribution to task needs and changingenvironments

• Auto-configuration, fault tolerance and recovery

2.2.2.1.3 T2.3: Process Modelling and Integration

• Based on the current state of the art in business process modeling and the require-ments and constraints of interactions with and between real-world entities, a conceptwill be defined how to model IoT processes.

• Extensions to existing languages like BPEL or BPMN will proposed to enable the de-sired process modelling and the specification of goal-oriented interactions betweenreal-world entities.

• Tool support for the extensions will be developed for use in the implementation of thedefined use cases.

2.2.2.1.4 T2.4: Global state detection and Complex Event Processing

• Identification of predicate classes for detection and representation of global states.

• Representation of complex events and analysis using Complex Events Processing(CEP) algorithms.

• Stream storage management and processing.

2.2.2.1.5 T2.5: Security analysis of services and process

• Gathering the security requirements from WP6 and forming the attack process.

• Developing the attack model from the attack process and the actors in the system.

• Apply security techniques such as obfuscation and Multi-party Computation (MCP) forenhancing security of processes.

19



O2.1: Modeling of IoT-aware (business) processes and necessary tool support

O2.1 was mostly dealt with by Task 2.3 that focuses on the design activity of repre-senting a business process in an abstracted model. In IoT-A, we already introduced inD2.2 the IoT-aware Process Modeling Concept seeking to lower the barrier for apply-ing IoT technology like sensors and actuators to current and new business processes.The process model comprises a graphical and a-non graphical XML representation,which is an initial step for progressing with the process resolution and execution. In thecurrent reporting period, we have then finalized the tool development within deliverableD2.4. Apart form delivering the software itself, the aim of this deliverable was to investi-gate the research question of how end-users can be supported to model both graphicaland machine-readable IoT-aware business processes. Therefore, the document couldbe seen as a technical guideline, explaining how the developed software can be usedby end users focusing on modeling experts, BPMN standard experts as well as devel-opers of BPMN-conform modeling tools as a target group. The implementation baseson the code foundation of the modeling environment Signavio Modeler.

O2.2: Adaptive orchestration of IoT resources and services with enterprise services

In the reporting period, we have extended the IoT-aware service orchestration and ser-vice composition techniques presented in D2.3 with support for self-management thatallows to build systems that are able to configure, to optimise to repair and to protectthemselves without or a minimum of human user interaction. Those capabilities con-tribute to qualitative system requirements like dependability, efficiency, and robustnessthat have been identified by WP6 as being essential for IoT systems. We have in-troduced an abstraction and management layer for IoT devices and IoT services thatapplies self-configuration for automatic device integration, device extinction, informa-tion fusion and service policies enforcement. The so called Real World IntegrationPlatform (RWIP) extends the service layer of the Future Internet with a middleware forautomated device integration. The work undertaken in Task 2.2 has been reported inD2.5. The work is seen as continuation of the work reported in D2.3 and thereforeit contains an evolution of concepts and techniques introduced in D2.3. For instancethe resolution phase during service orchestration that mediates between service re-quests triggered by Business Processes and the currently available IoT-resources hasbeen refined with a updated interfaces to makes use of the resolution framework beendeveloped by WP4. Another outcome of the T2.2 work was the updated IoT Ser-vice Description that was extended by quality parameters compared to D2.1 in order tosupport self management capabilities during service orchestration and service orches-tration. Quality of Service parameters, such as availability, robustness, network QoS,e.g. delay, throughput, have been introduced as well as Quality of Information param-eters, like accuracy, correctness, and precision. The service composition mechanismintroduced in D2.5 has been enhanced in order to take those quality parameters intoaccount during composition. Furthermore the IoT Service Description was extended

20

with the notion of a service endpoint service users are supposed to invoke. The inten-tion behind this is to give potential service users a hint by what technology a servicecan be invoked, e.g. as RESTful web service.

O2.3: Deployment models for IoT applications and services

Regarding deployment models we have outlined an approach for decentralised servicechoreography exemplified with the concept of distributed CEP services coordinated bya broker. As explained in D2.3 decentralised service composition handling is morescalable than centralised solutions with one orchestrator with a risk of being a sin-gle point of failure. If the orchestrator fails or is overloaded to serve requests the IoTservices cannot be executed properly. The decentralised choreography approach de-scribed in D2.5 addresses the scalability issue and thus contributes towards reliableIoT systems. The outcome of this work has lead to the addition of the Functional Com-ponent ÔService ChoreographyÕ to the Functional View of the IoT ARM described inD1.5.

O2.4: Manageability of IoT systems including self-* properties

In D2.3 it has been identified that with the size and complexity of IoT System their main-tainability increasingly requires self-management. D2.5 has been devoted mainly to thetopic of self-management, where in particular we have investigated self-configuration,self-optimization, self-healing, and self-protection. Each of these properties has beeninvestigated in the context of the different phases of IoT Service Composition. Self-configuration mechanisms have been described for IoT service composition, serviceorchestration, and for the services themselves. In addition, it has been outlined howself-configuration is applied for global state detection. The problem of self-optimizationhas been described in the context of cases where large numbers of services aremashed-up to provide services for whole geographic areas. The corresponding fam-ily of optimization problems has been identified, and algorithms for their solution havebeen given. For self-healing, an approach has been developed which utilizes the ex-isting resolution infrastructure in order to keep track of changes in the IoT environmentand trigger self-healing mechanisms when necessary. In addition, CEP services asthey have been proposed to detect abnormal behavior of services that are used asevent streams. Finally, a concept for achieving self-protection in IoT service orches-tration has been developed, based on a generalization of the replication paradigm intraditional fault-tolerant Service Oriented Computing, taking into account the specialcharacteristics of sensing and actuating Services. As an add-on, we have proposedextensions to Business Process Modelling Notation to reflect a bottom up approachthat introduces fault avoidance aspects to the on business or enterprise level.

O2.5: Dependency modeling and analysis using Complex Event Processing

”Complex Event Processing in IoT Architectures was a new topic that appeared for thefirst time within an official IoT-A document which introduced the issues of ”Global StateDetection” using ”Complex Event Processing”. The first relevant contribution was inte-grated into IR2.3: Chapter 5 as major attention was given to architecture and design

21

issues of CEP systems. In D2.6, we have then greatly augmented this work, describingan engineering and architecture design. Based on the reference model of an Event-Driven Architecture, events are transported from their sources (devices, services) viaan event channel service to the event consumers (CEP service). The following self*techniques are applied for orchestrating these components: An IoT Service or an IoTdevice performs a self-configuration as they determine the appropriate event chan-nel services and subscribe for configuration data. Likewise, the CEP service can beenabled to automatically determine the appropriate event channel service and to sub-scribe for necessary events. Self-optimization refers to the IoT Services and devicesas their configuration may be adapted dynamically based on the event content theydeliver. Finally, service or drop-out repair an anomaly detection and repairs can beapplied to CEP service.

The main contribution of O2.5 in D2.6 is the derivation of a concrete CEP architecturedesign, including:

• Functional Architecture: Event-Source Wrapper, Event Broker, Event ProcessingUnit, Event Channel, synchronization, leasing, filtering, spatial reasoning, state-full rules

• Information Architecture: Data models for Events, event description, and eventspecification

• Communication Architecture for event transfer and event brokerage: Protocols be-tween Event Source Wrapper, Event Broker, Event Processing Unit, Event Chan-nel

• Event-filtering and aggregation templates: on value, on time-out, on location (spa-tial reasoning)

• Deployment to a physical environment

• State-full rules and global system-state model

O2.6: Attack model and security analysis of services and events

The main contribution of O2.6 was reported in D2.7 (Security analysis and protectiontechniques) as a detailed in-depth three-step security analysis treating the securityof services and processes in IoT-A. In a first step, the security requirements weregathered and matched to the security needs of services in IoT. Secondly, an attackmodel was created using attack trees based on the elicited security needs. Thirdlyand as the final step of the security analysis, appropriate protection techniques forthe services and processes were thoroughly examined, discussed and assessed withrespect to IoT services. The security analysis was preceded by a preparatory chapterthat explains IoT services and introduces to the methodology deployed in the analysis,as for example the above mentioned attack trees. Finally, to round off the analysis andgain further insights, an application of the security analysis results’ was done to twouse cases in the domain of eHealth and Future Retail, the two scenarios pursued byIoT-A.

22

During second year WP2 has produced a number of documents:

D2.4: ”Tool Support for IoT-Aware Business Process Modeling” Released in Month 33,Due Month 33 This deliverable was coordinated by SAP with contribution from SAG

D2.5: Adaptive, fault-tolerant orchestration of distributed IoT service interactions” Re-leased in Month 26, Due Month 26 This deliverable was coordinated by UniS withcontribution from SAG, SAP, NEC

D2.6: Events representation and processing” Released in Month 33, Due Month 33 Thisdeliverable was coordinated by SAG with contribution from UniS, SAP, NEC

D2.7: ”Security analysis and protection techniques” Released in Month 33, Due Month33 This deliverable was coordinated by SAP

2.2.2.3 Meetings

Apart from telephone conferences, WP2 gathered at three physical meetings during thereporting period in order to plan for the planned deliverables and the integration opportunitieswith other work packages such as WP4 or WP7.The list of physical meetings below:

2.2.2.3.1 Plenary and Work Package Meeting, Berlin, October 9-11, 2012

• General Assembly: presentation of D2.6 interim status

• WP2 meetings:

– Finalisation of D2.5 ”Adaptive, Fault-tolerant Orchestration of Distributed IoT Ser-vice Interactions”

– Continuation of D2.6 "Event Representation and Processing"

2.2.2.3.2 Plenary and Work-Package Meeting, Antwerp, February 4-6, 2013

• General Assembly: presentation of T2.4/D2.6 interim status

• WP2 Meeting: continuation of D2.6 "Event Representation and Processing"

• X-WP meeting with WP1

2.2.2.3.3 Work-package Meeting T2.4, Munich, April 25-26, 2013

• Review of interim deliverable status

• Work coordination and assignment

• Development of spatial reasoning

• Phone conference with absent partners

23


In the second year period WP2 results were disseminated with the following channels:

• At ICT 2013, the WP7 demo was modelled with the WP2 based modelling tool

• The WP2-based process execution was shown at IoT-Week in the dynamic pricingdemonstrator

• The web platform www.iot4bpm.de is used as a dissemination tool in order to drawinterested parties to our modeling extensions for BPMN

• 4 scientific papers were published based on WP2 results



(actual)SAP 18.56SIEMENS 10.52UNIS 2NEC 3.21

2.2.3. WP3


The main objective of this work package is to provide a seamless communication flow be-tween IoT devices and services. The leadership of this work has been assured by HitachiEurope (as WP Leader) and CFR (as Deputy) Participation in WP3 activities by partners hasbeen in general satisfactory, although the participation of the same personnel to the work ofdifferent WPs made the man/power output decrease significantly at certain specific times.The work package is divided in 5 tasks.

2.2.3.1.1 Task 3.1: Protocol Watchdog As planned, after an initial effort in Period 1 inorder to compile the stat of the art on protocols, this task monitored all efforts happeningregarding protocols for smart devices. The output of this activity can be seen in the IR 3.4and indirectly in the work in M2M, in the development of the initial Protocol Suite for IoT, andin the security developments.

24

2.2.3.1.2 Task 3.2: M2M analysis This task focused on the architectural differences be-tween different technologies considered under the scope of IoT-A. The identification of pos-sible interfaces between heterogeneous technologies is of primary importance in order tobreak the vertical barriers. Therefore, a set of standard interfaces is been developed anddefined. The starting point was the already existing frameworks, such as the Wireless Sen-sor Networks frameworks that allow interaction between different hardware. The defined setof primitives is then translated into Application Programming Interfaces, in order to enablethe development of applications capable of exploiting the interaction between different sys-tems belonging to the IoT world. The results of this task were summarised in the deliverableD3.5.

2.2.3.1.3 Task 3.3: IoT Protocol Suite Development This task concentrated on the defi-nition and development of interfaces between different protocols stacks. The implementationand testing work has also been performed within this Task. The root of this work are in theTask 3.1: as this project opted for an evolutionary approach instead of a clean-slate one, Theidentification of gaps between different protocols and interfaces has been carried as a firststep. This work was performed in parallel and together with task 3.2. Together with Task 4.1(belonging to WP4), the analysis of existing solutions for ID/Locator split was carried, show-ing the impact of different solutions on the global architectural work.The Task 3.3 producedthe deliverable D3.6 that identifies the IoT protocol stack.

2.2.3.1.4 Task 3.4: Protocols Suitability Analysis for IoT Starting in Period 3, this taskidentified all issues of current protocols and indicated the guidelines for protocol develop-ments, in order to cope with the growth of interconnected devices. The results are preparedin the deliverable, D3.4.

2.2.3.1.5 Task 3.5 Security at Protocol Level As Security and Privacy are extremelyimportant matters in the field of communicating objects, this task studied the development ofsecurity mechanisms for smart devices at protocol levels. The Integrity is developed throughcryptographic enablers (Message Authentication Codes) and digital signatures, while Sourceauthentication was achieved using schemes such as TESLA (Timed Efficient Stream Loss-tolerant Authentication). The work in the security area has been extremely intense, andbrought to a number of very interesting results that were included in deliverables D3.4 andD3.6, and published in a long series of scientific papers.



O3.1: Provide seamless communication flow between entities, intended as devices orservices. This objective is tackled in all deliverable, and in particular in D3.3, InitialIoT Protocol Suite Definition.

O3.2: Develop and implement a uniform view between different existing protocols andcommunication means which is also the focus of the D3.3 deliverable.

25

O3.3: Develop an M2M API, enabling communication between devices, transparent to theuser, which is the focus of Task 3.2 and its deliverable D3.2

O3.4: Prepare guidelines for future protocols within the IoT scope, which will be thefocus of Task 3.4.

Regarding Deliverables and Internal Reports, during the second period the WP3 worked onthe following documents:

2.2.3.2.1 D3.5 Released in Month 33The present deliverable aims at presenting the final version of the machine-to-machine layeras a framework for enabling communications between higher level applications and IoT de-vices and services as well as between services belonging to different technologies wheneveradequate mapping between the semantics of these technologies is possible. The work fordefining the M2M Layer has evolved across three main axes:

1. The provision of a unified and abstract interface as an M2M API towards the services-that can accommodate the publication of any service offered by IoT devices.

2. The design of a framework that can use textual descriptions of devices and services inorder to instantiate software artifacts able to virtualize and federate these resources.

3. The support of inter-technology associations whenever this is possible but also mean-ingful for the enhancement of legacy services and applications.

The present deliverable concludes the work reported in D3.1 and D3.2 by consolidating andrefining the overall approach according to the findings and the experience gained throughoutthe development process with respect to the implementation of the various parts of the M2MLayer architecture.

2.2.3.2.2 D3.6 Released in Month 33In this deliverable the design of the final protocol suite for IoT is explained. At first, in Section2 we define useful terms, classify network and terminal types (especially in terms of theircapabilities / resources) and discuss revenant constraints. In Section 3 we define relevantnetwork scenarios that entail the communication of IoT devices within constrained domainsas well as through the Internet thanks to the exploitation of suitable IoT Gateways.Section 4 contains the description of the proposed protocol architecture, including the gen-eral diagrams pertaining to the involved actors and the foreseen interactions among them,the description of each protocol component, along with the related networking and securityprocedures. Note that our protocol design takes into account the current developments thatare being carried out by the scientific community as well as by relevant standardisation com-mittees such as IETF. Hence, we are fully aligned with these and we include them in ourdesign. In addition to this, we provide novel features that complement and improve existingIoT technology.These technological advancements are discussed in the following three sections of the deliv-erable. These are centered on the setup of end-to-end and secure communication channels

26

through lightweight and possibly cooperative means and the design of novel transport layerprotocols, specifically designed for constrained domains. In detail:

1. End-to-end secure channel establishment (Section 5): we present novel strategiesto set up secure end-to-end communication channels through the involvement of atrusted IoT Gateway. These strategies entail the offloading of some computationallyheavy security functionalities to the Gateway so as to reduce the computational burdenfor the constrained IoT devices. Note that this procedure is completely transparent tothe servers of computers that access the IoT resource from the standard Internet, i.e.,that reside outside the constrained domain. Moreover, our procedures also include thecurrent IETF practice whereby the IoT Gateway is totally transparent and has no activeinvolvement in the security channel establishment. This section contains a full descrip-tion of the approach along with its implementation details and recommendations foruse and future improvements.

2. Cooperative security protocols (Section 6): we present efficient key establishmentprotocols that are conceived to delegate cryptographic computational load to lessresource-constrained nodes through a collaborative scheme. The idea is that highlyresource-constrained IoT nodes can obtain assistance from more powerful nodes intheir network in order to securely derive a shared secret with a peer. In this sectiona full design is presented: we first review, classify and evaluate the existing key es-tablishment protocols. Thus, we describe the proposed cooperative key transport andkey agreement schemes for IoT nodes. Finally, we the proposed solutions are fullyevaluated and compared against existing non-cooperative protocols.

3. Novel congestion control protocols for constrained domains (Section 7): we addressthe design of network architectures for the Internet of Things by proposing practicalalgorithms to augment IETF CoAP/6LoWPAN protocol stacks with congestion controlfunctionalities. Our design is inspired by previous theoretical work on back pressurerouting and is targeted toward Web-based architectures featuring bidirectional dataflows made up of CoAP request/response pairs. Here, we present three different cross-layer and fully decentralized congestion control schemes and compare them againstideal back pressure and current UDP-based protocol stacks. Hence, we discuss exten-sive numerical results, which confirm that the proposed congestion control algorithmsperform satisfactorily in the selected network scenarios for a wide range of values oftheir configuration parameters, and are amenable to the implementation onto existingprotocol stacks for embedded IoT devices.

2.2.3.2.3 D3.4 Released in Month 36The common lifecycle of any novel technology is rather short: in roughly 18 months, asMoore correctly predicted a long time ago, we see the emergence of a new generation ofdevices. Therefore, nearly any currently running research project, even targeting long-termresults, is likely to be obsolete in a few years.However, some technologies, such as IP, stand since almost 40 years, modified only by areasonable amount of patches. These technologies might be ill-suited for services that were

27

nothing less than science-fiction when they were developed, but their upgrade is almostimpossible, because of cost, disruption of existing services and application, and complexity.As a radical change to upgrade these long-standing technological bricks might be unfeasible,and s it’s very hard to predict which technologies will be used as cornerstone for the next20 years of development, it make sense to develop today’s technologies trying to be openand ready for improvements, and taking into account the likely advances of related fields.Therefore, this deliverable is dedicated to some discussion on emerging technologies inorder to promote some guidelines for future developments.The document is divided in three main areas: Architecture, Communication and Security. Inour view, these areas will shape any Internet of Things domain in the short-to-medium term,and "getting it right" is fundamental to foster further developments in the IoT field. More indetail, we will look into ethical aspects of IoT architectures, as they will have a huge influenceon any development, and in infrastructureless networking. We will look at two RFCs, RFC1958 and RFC 3439, as they are the cornerstone of the architectural technical principles ofthe Internet. We will analyse the founding principles with an IoT view, and their consistencyin the IoT domain.This deliverable concludes and summarises the work carried out in Task 3.4

2.2.3.3 Meetings

During the third year we held two meetings.List of physical meetings below:

• Padova - Oct 1-2, 2012

• Antwerp - February 4, 2013

Regular phone conferences were held to discuss advancements of different deliverables.


Opportunities in the second year period for disseminating IOT-A results:

1. R. Bonetto, N. Bui, V. Lakkundi, A. Olivereau, A. Serbanati and M. Rossi, SecureCommunication for Smart IoT Objects: Protocol Stacks, Use Cases and Practical Ex-amples, IEEE IoT-SoS Workshop, San Francisco, CA, US, 2012.

2. A. P. Castellani, T. Fossati, S. Loreto, HTTP-CoAP Cross Protocol Proxy: An Imple-mentation Viewpoint, IEEE IoTech 2012, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2012.

3. A. P. Castellani, M. Rossi, M. Zorzi, Back Pressure Congestion Control for CoAP/-6LoWPAN Networks, Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks, Special Issue ”From M2M Communi-cation to the Internet of Things”, Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks, Published online on March2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc.2013.02.007 [Journal Published, CFR]

4. M.Danieletto, N. Bui and M. Zorzi, Improving Internet of Things Communications throughCompression and Classification, IEEE PerSens 2012, Lugano, Switzerland, 2012.

28

5. A. P. Castellani, Moreno Dissegna, Nicola Bui and Michele Zorzi, WebIoT:æAæWebApplication Framework for the Internet of Things, IoT-ET workshop of IEEE WCNC2012, Paris, France.

6. R. Bonetto, N. Bui, M. Rossi, M. Zorzi, McMAC:æaæpower efficient, short preambleMulti-ChannelæMedium Access Control protocol for wireless sensorænetworks, ACMWNS3 workshop of ACM SIMUTools 2012, Sirmione, Italy.

7. Y. Ben Saied, A. Olivereau, HIP Tiny Exchange (TEX): A Distributed Key ExchangeScheme for HIP-based Internet of Things, 3rd International Conference on Communi-cations and Networking (ComNet), 2012.

8. Y. Ben Saied, A. Olivereau and M. Laurent, A Distributed Approach for Secure M2MCommunications, The 5th IFIP International Conference on New Technologies, Mobilityand Security (NTMS) 2012.

9. Y. Ben Saied, A. Olivereau, D-HIP: A Distributed Key Exchange Scheme for HIP-basedInternet of Things, First IEEE WoWMoM Workshop on the Internet of Things: SmartObjects and Services, IoT-SoS 2012.

10. Y. Ben Saied and A. Olivereau, (k, n) Threshold Distributed Key Exchange for HIPbased Internet of Things, 10th ACM International Symposium on Mobility Managementand Wireless Access (MOBIWAC) 2012.

11. Y. Ben Saied, A. Olivereau, M. Laurent, and D. Zeghlache, Lightweight collaborativekeying for the Internet of Things, Submitted to Elsevier Ad hoc Networks special issueon Security, Privacy and Trust Management in the Internet of Things era (SePriT),2012. [Journal Submitted, CEA]

12. A. P. Castellani , G. Ministeri , M. Rotoloni , L. Vangelista and M. Zorzi,æInteroperableand globally interconnected SmartæGrid using IPv6 and 6LoWPAN, SaCoNet work-shop of IEEE ICC 2012, Ottawa, Canada, 2012.

13. N. Bui, N. Bressan, M. Zorzi, Interconnection of Body Area NetworksætoæaæCom-munications Infrastructure:æan Architectural Study, European Wireless 2012, Pozna?,Poland, 2012.

14. N. Bui, A. P. Castellani, P. Casari, M. Zorzi, The Internet of Energy: A Web-enabledSmart Grid system 2012, IEEE Network, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 39-45. [Journal Published,CFR]

15. N. Bui, A. P. Castellani, P. Casari, M. Rossi, L. Vangelista, M. Zorzi, Implementation ofand Performance Evaluation of Wireless Sensor Networks for Smart Grid, Book chap-ter in E. Hossain, Z. Han, and H. V. Poor, Smart Grid Communications and Networking,(edited volume),Cambridge University Press, IBSN-13: 978-1107014138.

16. Nicola Bui, Michele Rossi and Michele Zorzi, Networking Technologies for Smart Grid.Book chapter in: IEEE Vision for Smart Grid Communications: 2030 and Beyond, Ed.

29

Sanjay Goel, Stephen F. Bushand Dave Bakken. IEEE Communications Society 2013.IEEE 3 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016-5997 USA. [Book chapter, CFR]

17. A. Zanella, Adaptive Batch Resolution Algorithm with Deferred Feedback for WirelessSystems, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, Vol. 11, No. 10, October2012. [Journal Published, CFR]

18. G. Quer, R. Masiero, Michele Rossi, M. Zorzi, Sensing, Compression, and Recoveryfor WSNs: Sparse Signal Modeling and Monitoring Framework, IEEE Transactions onWireless Communications, vol. 11, no. 10, pp: 3447-3461, October 2012. [JournalPublished, CFR]

19. D. Altolini, V. Lakkundi, N. Bui, C. Tapparello and M. Rossi, Low Power Link LayerSecurity for IoT: Implementation and Performance Analysis, IEEE IWCMC, June 1-5,Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy, 2013.



(actual)HEU 10.06FHG IML 4.66CEA 5.50SUni 12CFR 14.44CSE 12.60UniP 5.80

2.2.4. WP4


WP4 has completed its implementation and evaluation phase, which also corresponds tothe overall completion of WP4 activities. The following typical component instances for look-up and discovery in an Internet of Things have been implemented and evaluated in D4.4 -Final Design and Implementation Report: Geo-Discovery, Semantic Web-based Discovery,Federation-based Discovery and Association Creation, Peer-to-peer-based look-up, M3 anduID-based Look-up and Discovery. WP4 has implemented the core security components:Authentication (AuthN), Authorization (AuthZ), Key exchange management (KEM), Trust andReputation Architecture (TRA). The components have been integrated and shown in the usecase demonstrators in WP7.Within the reporting period the following changes took place

30

• VTT was integrated, taking over some of the activities originally assigned to TID (thatleft during the previous reporting period). Other activities, especially implementation-related ones had to be taken over by other partners, most notably NEC.

• The deputy WPL position (originally assigned to TID) was taken over by the Universityof Surrey (Suparna De).

• Due to changes at La Sapienza University, a handover from the former CATTID groupto the computer science department had to be handled, which also resulted in differentpeople taking over the activities at la Sapienza University.

The work package 4 is divided into 4 tasks.

2.2.4.1.1 Task 4.1: Identification and Lookup of IoT Resources WP4 has selected theuID identification scheme as being one suitable solution for IoT, which is showcased in VTT’simplementation of the IoT-A resolution infrastructure, reported as part of D4.4.WP4 has completed the implementation of typical instances of the previously investigatedarchitectures, i.e., for discovering services using geo-location, semantic web and federationbased approaches and for looking up and resolving service IDs using a DHT-based P2Papproach, which were all evaluated individually in D4.4. The geo-location, semantic weband DHT-based P2P approach were also integrated, jointly evaluated as shown in D4.4, andprovided to WP7, so key functionality could be shown as part of the demonstrator use cases.In addition VTT provided a separate implementation of the key identification, service look-upand discovery functionalities based on the uID and M3 infrastructures respectively based onpartially different design choices, in particular a data-centric approach with services provid-ing information about multiple physical entities.

2.2.4.1.2 Task 4.2: Entity-based Discovery of IoT Resources WP4 has implementedand evaluated entity-based look-up and discovery using geo-location, semantic web and fed-eration based approaches and for looking up and resolving service IDs using a DHT-basedP2P approach, which were all evaluated individually in D4.4. The geo-location, seman-tic web and DHT-based P2P approach were also integrated, jointly evaluated as shown inD4.4, and provided to WP7, so key functionality could be shown as part of the demonstratoruse cases. VTT’s approach, implemented based on uID and M3 infrastructures, also allowsthe discovery and look-up of the services providing information about physical entities

2.2.4.1.3 Task 4.3: Managing Dynamic Associations between IoT Resources andReal World Entities As part of D4.4, WP4 has implemented and evaluated mechanismsfor dynamically discovering associations between virtual entities and IoT services based onsemantic information.

2.2.4.1.4 Task 4.4: Privacy and Security in the Resolution Infrastructure As part ofD4.4, components for Authorization (AuthZ), Authentication (AuthN), Key Exchange Man-agement (KEM) and Trust and Reputation Architecture (TRA) have been implemented, eval-uated and integrated. The use of the secured Resolution Infrastructure was shown in one

31

of the WP7 demos. D4.4. also illustrates what would need to be done to integrate the Iden-tity Management (IM) with the Resolution Infrastructure. To further detail the integration ofthe security components, IR4.4 - Detailed Design, Evaluation and Integration of SecurityComponents was created.



O4.1: Design or apply a global identification framework for the IoT Resolution Infras-tructure, able to accommodate heterogeneous identification schemes and mech-anisms.

As decided in the previous reporting period, WP4 has not developed a completely newidentification scheme. The uID identification scheme developed by the Ubiquitous IDCenter was selected as one possible identification scheme for IoT. The VTT imple-mentation showcases the integration of the uID identification scheme within the IoT-Aresolution infrastructure, which is reported as part of D4.4.

O4.2: Develop concepts and solutions for efficient finding and lookup of IoT Resourcesbased on identifiers and descriptions of IoT Resources.

Different solutions for efficient discovery, look-up and resolution of IoT Services (thatmay expose Resources) have been developed. Key approaches are the efficient dis-covery based on geographic coordinates the discovery of services based on a seman-tic specification, a federated discovery approach, the efficient look-up and resolutionbased on peer-to-peer technology and the uID-infrastructure based look-up.

O4.3: Develop concepts and solutions for finding of IoT resources that provide infor-mation about or allow interactions with Real World Entities.

The focus has been on managing and providing efficient access to associations be-tween Virtual Entities (representing Physical Entities in the digital world) and IoT Ser-vices as a basis for applications dynamically interacting with their respective previouslyunknown environment.

O4.4: Develop mechanisms for efficiently discovering relevant Real World Entities basedon physical world aspects, especially location.

Similar to the case of services, the developed solutions centered on the efficient dis-covery based on geographically specified areas and semantic specifications that werematched against semantic descriptions of Virtual Entities, including symbolic locations.

O4.5: Facilitate scalable tracking of real world entities in ubiquitous computing envi-ronments and maintenance of bindings to IoT resources that provide informationabout them.

Different mechanisms have been investigated that allow the tracking of virtual entitiesand IoT services to dynamically discover associations between them. The respective

32

approaches are geo-location, semantic and federation-based. The focus in the lastreporting period has been on the semantic approach for finding new associations.

O4.6: Provide support for pseudonymity, i.e., that I do not have to reveal my identitywhen using an IoT resource or higher-level service.

An Identity Management component has been specified that offers features so thatsome services can be accessed on an anonymous basis, while others might require anexplicit authentication or authorization. It has been shown how an Identity Managementcomponent can interact with the other security components to support pseudonymousaccess.

O4.7: Address privacy and confidentiality concerns by controlling the access to IoTResources, Real World Entities and the related information including their re-spective identifiers, e.g., making IoT resources and entities invisible to non-authorized users.

Components for Authorization (AuthZ), Authentication (AuthN), Key Exchange Man-agement (KEM), Identity Management (IM) and Trust and Reputation Architecture(TRA) have been defined, introducing a comprehensive set of trust-enhancing securityfunctional elements for the resolution infrastructure as a crucial part of the Internet ofThings.

O4.8: Implement a prototype of the resolution infrastructure that integrates importantaspects of the developed solutions.

The components for a first integrated prototype have been implemented, evaluated andintegrated into the WP7 demonstrations, showing the required functionalities of an IoTResolution Infrastructure. The design, evaluation, and integration results can be foundin D4.4.

Regarding Deliverables and Internal Reports, during the second period the WP4 worked onthe following documents:

• D4.4: ”Final Design and Implementation Report”

Released in Month 35, due in Month 34 This deliverable was coordinated by VTT (PasiHyttinen) with contributions from NEC, Siemens, ALBLF, UniS, La Sapienza, CEA, VTT

• IR 4.4 ”Detailed Design, Evaluation and Integration of Security Components”

Additional report to document in more detail the design and interaction between thesecurity components to facilitate the integration of the components to be shown aspart of a WP7 demo use case. This internal report was coordinated by NEC (DennisGessner) with contribution from NEC, CEA and La Sapienza

33

2.2.4.3 Meetings

During the third year we had 4 meetings related to WP4.The list of physical meetings below:

• Berlin - October 10-12, 2012 (WP4 Meeting + Integration Meeting)

• Zurich - October 24-25, 2012 (WP4-WP7 Integration Meeting)

• Antwerp - February 4-7, 2013 (WP4 Meeting + Cross-WP Meetings)

• Heidelberg - July 8-9, 2013 (T4.4 Integration Meeting)


Opportunities in the third year period for disseminating IoT-A results:When Where Who Event or PaperSeptember2012

Palermo, Italy Benoit Christophe(ALBLF)

IEEE International Conference onSemantic Computing (ICSC)

December2012

Tokyo, Japan VTT TRONSHOW 2013

March 2013 Elsevier Ad HocNetworks Journal

Suparna De(UniS),BenoitChristophe(ALBLF),KlausMoessner (UniS)

Semantic Enablers for DynamicDigital-Physical Object Associationsin a Federated Node Architecture forthe Internet of Things

April 2013 Philadelphia, USA VTT Cyber Phyiscal Systems Week2013 IEEE Transac-

tions on ServicesComputing Jour-nal

Gilbert Cas-sar,Payam Bar-naghi,KlausMoessner (UniS)

Probabilistic Matchmaking Methodsfor Automated Service Discovery

June 2013 Helsinki, Finland Martin Bauer(NEC), VTT,Sapienza

IoT Week, (demos, IERC AC2, Pre-sentation on WP4 evaluation results)

July 2013 18th IEEE Sym-posium on Com-puters and Com-munications

Gilbert Cassar,Payam Barnaghi,Wei Wang, Su-parna De, KlausMoessner (UniS)

Composition of Services in Perva-sive Environments: A Divide andConquer Approach

September2013

Submission toIEEE World Fo-rum on IoT, Seoul,2014

Martin Bauer,Salvatore Longo(NEC)

Geographic Service Discovery forthe Internet of Things

November2013

ACM Senssys2013

D. Mattiacci, S.Kosta, A. Meiand J. Stefa(Sapienza)

Supporting Interoperability of Thingsin IoT Systems

34



(actual)SIEMENS 0.83HSG 2.68UNIS 9CEA 3.64NEC 28.72Sapienza 11.9UniWue 0 (moved to WP1

and WP6)ALBLF 3.46VTT 13.54

2.2.5. WP5


From a task level perspective, the works in WP5 resulted in:

2.2.5.1.1 Task 5.1, Energy Efficiency Towards O5.1 NXP-DE has started to investigatethe possibilities for energy management and energy harvesting on the architectures of newmultifunctional cards. These cards are low power smart cards which have additional sensorsand other components on board and are able to perform strong crypto routines while its onlypower source is the RF field.For many IoT-applications the processing time required by a cryptographic primitive imple-mented in hardware is an important metric. As a consequence, there are important applica-tions for cost effective low-latency encryption. NXP-BE explores the low- latency behaviorof hardware implementations of a set of block ciphers. The latency of the implementationsis investigated as well as the trade-offs with other metrics such as circuit area, time-areaproduct, power, and energy consumption. The obtained results are related back to the prop-erties of the underlying cipher algorithm and, as it turns out, the number of rounds, theircomplexity, and the similarity of encryption and decryption procedures have a strong impacton the results. We provide a qualitative description and conclude with a set of guidelines forthe design of block ciphers.As a result of this research NXP-BE has introduced the domain of low-latency encryption,clearly distinguishing it from the domains of lightweight and conventional encryption. Sixwell-known lightweight SPN block ciphers, including AES, were selected based on theirproperties and identified as possible candidates to yield good low-latency behavior. NXP-BEevaluated their hardware performance within the context of low-latency encryption, thereby

35

providing the results in the field. It has been shown that the obtained results (i.e. latency,area, power, and energy consumption) are strongly influenced by the design properties suchas the number of rounds, the round’s complexity, and the similarity between encryption anddecryption procedures. The result of this work has been published in the proceedings of theleading conference on cryptographic hardware CHES 2012.CEA has studied the different techniques used in commercial products like RFID readers tolower energy consumption. It has evaluated a concept of card presence detection with theuse of an infinitesimal amount of energy to trigger the field of the RFID reader only whena card is in its proximity. The wasted energy during standby period can thus be efficientlyreduced. A specification of this solution is under study.

2.2.5.1.2 Task 5.2, On device Security and Privacy Specification, architecture, fron-tend and backend design, pre-production security analysis, and validation testing has beendone for the UCODE RFID tag device that uses a strong asymmetric crypto coprocessorto operate on elliptic curves. Currently, a first prototype is in production. Regarding pre-production security analysis investigations (towards O5.2) have been done with the aim todevelop a process to generate and evaluate (D5.3) meaningful information about the tag’sside-channel behavior before having finished final layout or having access to a silicon chip.Furthermore, NXP-DE together with NXP-BE made progress in developing authenticationprotocols that are supposed to be used to authenticate low power devices like RFID chipsusing NXP’s asymmetric crypto tag (O5.3).Side-channel analysis exploits the information leaked during the computation of a crypto-graphic algorithm. The most common technique is to analyze the power consumption of acryptographic device using differential power analysis (DPA). This side-channel attack ex-ploits the correlation between the instantaneous power consumption of a device and theintermediate results of a cryptographic algorithm. Several countermeasures against side-channel attacks have been proposed. Circuit design approaches try to balance the powerconsumption of different data values. Another method is to randomize the intermediate val-ues of an algorithm by masking them. This can be done at the algorithm level, at the gatelevel or even in combination with circuit design approaches. Many of these approaches re-sult in very secure software implementations. However, it has been shown that hardwareimplementations are much more difficult to protect against DPA.The problem of most of these masking approaches is that they underestimate the amount ofinformation that is leaked by hardware, for instance during glitches or other transient effects.The security proofs are based on an idealized hardware model, resulting in requirementson the hardware that are very expensive to meet in practice. NXP-BE investigated the ap-plication of a novel blinding technology to improve the resilience of cryptographic hardwareimplementations. The main advantages of the investigated threshold implementation ap-proach are that it provides provable security against first-order DPA attacks with minimalassumptions on the hardware technology, in particular, it is also secure in the presence ofglitches. Furthermore, this method allows to construct realistic-size circuits. The result ofthis work has been published in the proceedings of the leading conference on cryptographichardware CHES 2012.CEA has contributed to the writing of the deliverable D5.3 which describes the evolution

36

of different solutions to improve security and privacy on the physical layer and low levelprotocols of RFID devices. This document will be delivered in September 2012.CEA continues working on the RFID Noisy Reader solution to preserve privacy in RFIDsystems by avoiding eavesdropping or skimming on the communication. This device will becoupled with a specific security protocol adapted to low resources devices which introducesan authentication of the noisy reader and a ownership transfer scheme. Hardware part ofthe complete system is still under development but the protocol part is now evaluated.CEA has performs a re-evaluation of the security of RFID systems during the last 6 monthswhich shows that relay attacks were a main issue. Henceforth a solution against this threaton contactless cards using the detection of the introduced delay by a correlation was pro-posed. A demonstrator is now under development.

2.2.5.1.3 Runtime environment for WSN (IBM) The work towards Task 5.3 is deliveredmainly by sequential releases of the Mote Runner infrastructure platform of IBM. DuringM25-M39 two major releases have been released. In detail these releases added the follow-ing new or updated features:Beta 11, released March 2013

• 6LoWPAN: The SDK ships with a partial sample implementation of 6LoWPAN (exam-ples/6lowpan). It features a TDMA multi hop network protocol with tree managementby the edge mote. A sample virtual IPv6 tunnel interface to exchange IPv6 packetswith wireless motes is available for Linux and OSX.

• IRIS: Basic examples for the MDA100 and MTS300 sensor boards using the MoteRunner generic sensor APIs.

• AVRRAVEN: LCD can be operated as a device and used to display alphanumericsymbols and icons.

• Changes: The system (saguaro-system-11.0) and platform APIs have a new majornumber (11). Please remove old sxp files or increase the major number of your appli-cations and recompile your code against the new APIs.

• Bug fixes

Beta 13, released October 2013

• Release for the Libelium / IBM IoT Starter Kit including the necessary firmware, li-braries and examples to work with the Waspmote Pro v1.2. The release was at theend of IoT-A yet is the result of a lot of work done within IoT-A.

2.2.5.1.4 Task 5.4, Hardware Components NXP DE is developing new hardware com-ponents, right now called NXP Blueboard and Flexboard Reader Gateways. These deviceshost a programmable microcontroller and may act as a NFC/RFID/PC bridge (O5.4). Thisdevice can easily be extended by other interfaces since it offers a flexible hardware interface

37

and a software development kit. Thus, this device may act as a point of trust that is indepen-dent from a PC or smart phone (O5.2, O5.3). The first prototypes were shipped to partnersin WP7 to be integrated in the health use case. Furthermore, NXP DE contributed in D5.6.CSE has prepared the gateway that will be used for some use cases and implemented somebasic services on the gateway hardware:

• The HW of the CSE GW has been designed, manufactured and assembled and somebasic components were tested successfully:

• IEEE wireless and fixed ethernet interfaces

• RS 232

• Linux (OpenWRT trunk version) embedded and tested

• Remaining components for testing: USB, 2nd serial, ADSL I/F



O5.1: High energy efficiency for devices and components

Specification, architecture, frontend and backend design, pre-production security anal-ysis, and validation testing has been done for the UCODE RFID tag device that usesa strong asymmetric crypto coprocessor to operate on elliptic curves developed dur-ing M1 - M12. Currently, a first prototype is in production. Regarding pre-productionsecurity analysis investigations (also related to O5.2) have been done with the aim todevelop a process to generate and evaluate (D5.3) meaningful information about thetag’s side-channel behavior before having finished final layout or having access to asilicon chip.

O5.2: High security level and authentication

CEA-Leti provided a steganographic RFID system that protects against eavesdropping.Many cryptographic algorithms that are based on substitution boxes (e.g., DES) arevulnerable against side channel attacks like differential power analysis. These deviceswill be coupled with a specific security protocol adapted to low resources devices whichintroduces an authentication of the noisy reader and a ownership transfer scheme.

NXP derived a economically feasible implementation for recently suggested maskingmethod. This implementation provides provable security against first-order DPA at-tacks with minimal assumptions on the hardware technology, in particular, it is alsosecure in the presence of glitches, and that the method allows to construct realistic-size circuits

O5.3: Privacy by end user control and by cryptography in low capable devices

see O5.1

38

O5.4: Run-time environment for both end-devices and hubs applications as an integrationpoint towards the IoT architecture

CSE implemented a gateways that enables home automation. This gateway allows tointerface with several wired and wireless protocols.

The newest releases of the IBM MoteRunner provides a new API that supports ar-bitrary sensors as a first step towards 3rd party native sensor and actuator drivers.This is a major step away from only supporting basic sensors to supporting 3rd-partysensors and actuators as a fundamental prerequisite for a broader adoption of theplatform. Furthermore, a new generic communications API replacing the previousradio-only API, providing support especially for devices with multiple communicationfacilities. This is especially important for gateway motes like the gateway provided byCSE.

During third period WP5 has produced the following deliverables:Deliverable Coordinated

byContribution from planned

releaseD5.3 Secure and Privacy compliantinteractions with IoT objects: Designand evaluation

NXP-BE CEA-Leti, CSE,IBM, NXP-DE,NXP-BE

M 24

D5.7 HW enablers: prototyping CSE CEA-Leti, CSE,IBM, NXP-DE

M 28

D5.1 Energy aware IoT architecture CEA-Leti CEA-Leti, CFR,CSE, IBM, NXP-DE, NXP-BE

M 31

2.2.5.3 Meetings

Purpose Location DateWP 5 + Cross WP meetings Berlin October, 10-12

2012WP 5 Meeting Zurich October, 24-25

2012WP 5 + Cross WP Meetings Antwerp February 4-7,

2013


IBM actively participated in several IoT-A related EU meetings and customer presentationsat their Industry Solutions Lab (ISL), giving demonstrations and showing the impact of thisEU project. IBM was working in close cooperation with project partners SAP and FhG IMLtowards the implementation of the logistics use cases as tangible results beyond specifica-tions. Also IBM and CSE worked closely together to integrate the gateway developed byCSE in WP5 as a connecting element between wireless sensor networks and the IBM MoteRunner edgeserver.

39

NXP co-operated with the partners in WP 7 to identify the use case requirements and pro-pose hardware solutions that are used in the implementation of the WP 7 use cases.

2.2.5.4.1 Conferences

• Pierre-Henri Thevenon, Olivier Savry, Smail Tedjini, On the Weakness of ContactlessSystem under Relay Attacks, Softcom,2011.

• "Low-Latency Encryption – Is ”Lightweight = Light + Wait”?", Miroslav Knezevic, VentzislavNikov, and Peter Rombouts pp. 426-447, CHES 2012, LNCS 7428

• "Threshold Implementations of All 3 x 3 and 4 x 4 S-Boxes", Begul Bilgin, Svetla Nikova,Ventzislav Nikov, Vincent Rijmen, and Georg Stutz pp. 76-92, CHES 2012, LNCS 7428

• "PRINCE - A Low-latency Block Cipher for Pervasive Computing Applications", JuliaBorghoff and Anne Canteaut and Tim Güneysu and Elif Bilge Kavun and MiroslavKnezevic and Lars R. Knudsen and Gregor Leander and Ventzislav Nikov and ChristofPaar and Christian Rechberger and Peter Rombouts and Soren S. Thomsen and TolgaYalçin, to appear at ASIACRYPT

2.2.5.4.2 Books Pierre-Henri Thevenon, Ricardo Malherbi-Martins, Olivier Savry, SmailTedjini , Attacks on the physical layer of contactless and RFID systems, , Intech, Currenttrends and challenges in RFID, ISBN: 978-953-307-356-9, 2011



(actual)NXP BE 19.54NXP DE 15.4IBM 8.393CEA-LETI

20.84

CSE 5.17CFR 3.21

2.2.6. WP6


WP6 focuses on two major goals. First, WP6 aims at facilitating the development of archi-tectural reference model by collecting functional as well as non-functional requirements from

40

a very diverse set of actors. Second, WP6 aims on validation and providing feedback onthe ARM developed in IoT-A. The goals are supported by interaction with a diverse set ofexternal and internal stakeholders. WP6 has three objectives, each covered by the activitiesof a task.The work package 6 is divided in 3 tasks.

2.2.6.1.1 Task breakdown From a task level perspective, the works in WP6 resulted in:

• Task 6.1, Requirements collection and analysis, led by M. Boussard, ALBLF

– Gather functional and non-functional requirements both issued from stakeholdersor inferred from other work packages and state of the art.

– The requirements should be applicable to an ARM and at the same time reflectthe stakeholders understanding of risk, cost, quality and possibilities of the IoTdomain.

– Development of fit criteria that allow validating the ARM against the requirements.

• Task 6.2, Architecture, Business and Socio-Economic validation, led by A. SalinasSegura, UniWue

– Technological validation of the architecture.

– Use-cases validation regarding the regulation (such as privacy) and business(such as cost/benefit) perspectives.

• Task 6.3, Stakeholder Interaction and Validation, led by A. Bassi, HEU

– Maintain contact and manage interaction with the set of external stakeholders.

– Organize and report on workshops involving all or some of the stakeholders.

– Evaluate the architecture with the stakeholders.

The work of the tasks corresponds to the objectives as stated below. Task 6.1 works on theobjective O6.1, task 6.2 relates to objective O6.2 and finally task 6.3 aims at objective O6.3.



O6.1: Provide a set of requirements based on both project internal requirements aswell as externally collected requirements from the stakeholder group.

T6.1 created the IoT-A list of requirements according the objective. Those require-ments are named ÒUnified RequirementsÓ since they incorporate the input from var-ious external stakeholders as well as from project internal state of the art and expertinput collected in the technical work packages. The domains logistics, health care,technology integrator, retail, automotive, service integrator, telecom, law, standardiza-tion, veterinary, and smart cities are addressed from external side. In addition to the

41

areas of the technical work packages project internal input was also collected in theareas of security and management.

The requirements were edited in close cooperation with WP1 to ensure the applica-bility and usage in the ARM. This application of the requirement was verified by theT6.1 in mapping all requirements to the ARM, i.e. we list for each requirement therelated reflection regarding ARM components (View, Perspective, Functionality Group,Functional Component and Domain Model).

The Unified Requirements List together with the description of methodology and an ex-haustive requirements analysis is presented in D6.3 ÒFinal requirements listÓ (M33).The deliverable was scheduled to fit with the work of WP1 and the release of D1.5. Tomake the requirements more accessible and reusable, the list is available in electronicand searchable form on http://www.iot-a.eu/public/requirements/.

O6.2: Perform validation of the resulting architecture against requirements and stake-holder perceptions.

T6.2 performed the validation of the ARM. The validation addresses technical, busi-ness, and socio-economic aspects. These validation activities are documented in D6.4"Final validation report". The validation activities of WP6 are complemented by valida-tion in the technical work packages (a list is given in D6.4 as reference).

The technical validation

• Obtained and took external feedback on the IoT ARM into account

• Checked requirements fulfillment

• Validated the applicability of the ARM to arbitrary IoT systems via reverse mapping

For collecting external feedback the task T6.2 set up several meetings/workshops inaddition to the initially planned core stakeholder group workshops. These were specif-ically two meetings with industrial companies (Bosch, Alleantia), the participation andIoT-A feedback collection in 4 IERC AC1 meetings, the organization of a dedicated ex-pert workshop with selected IoT related IERC projects and a dedicated workshop withan expert in reference models (Prof. Muller). The feedback has been incorporated inthe work of WP1, leading to significant changes like the newly introduced red thread ex-ample or the extensive chapter on guidelines. Also many small improvements/changeshave been communicated to WP1, have been incorporated and feedback to those hasshown increasing acceptance of the ARM.

The addressing of requirements and the applicability of the ARM to arbitrary IoT sys-tems were reached mainly by project internal investigation.

Business validation was done in terms of the analysis of the Internet of Things valuechain and the analysis of the business case of the e-health and logistics IoT-A usecases.

In terms of the socio-economic validation, a Delphi study was conducted and a privacyimpact analysis (PIA) was done on the example of one of the IoT-A e-health scenes.

42

O6.3: Interaction with a group of external stakeholders including knowledge and infor-mation transfer.

T6.3 organized in cooperation with the stakeholder coordinator the core stakeholdergroup workshops SW5 and SW6 as well as contributed to the organization of the expertworkshops.

T6.3 worked on increasing the number of stakeholders participating in IoT-A. Newstakeholder candidates were invited to the workshops. In addition, T6.3 contributedto the dissemination activities, such as the meet-ups.

For preparing SW5 and SW6, T6.3 sent the briefing notes and invitations (togetherwith T8.2 and the stakeholder coordinator).

During third period WP6 produced two documents:

• D6.3: ”Final requirements list”

Released in Month 33 This deliverable was coordinated by C. Magerkurth (SAP), withcontribution from M. Boussard (ALBL-F), C. Magerkurth (SAP), S. Meyer (SAP)A. Sali-nas Segura (UniWue), N. Vicari (SAG).

• D6.4: ”Final validation report”

Released in Month 39 This internal report was coordinated by A. Salinas Segura (Uni-Wue) with contribution from M. Bauer (NEC), M. Fiedler (FhG IML), M. Hinkelmann(NXP DE), E. Ho (HSG), C. Magerkurth (SAP), A. Salinas Segura (UniWue), N. Vicari(SAG), J. W. Walewski (SAG).

2.2.6.3 Meetings

During the third year WP6 had almost weekly phone conferences, and on WP level 4 physicalF2F and cross WP meetings. Besides the activities on WP level, several phone conferencesand meetings with a limited number of participants were organized for coordinating the WPand interaction with other WPs, as well as for discussing specific topics, such as require-ments refinement, expert meetings planning and validation planning.Further, WP6 participated in IERC AC1 meetings and organized industry and expert meet-ings for validation purposes.The physical WP6 meetings are listed below:

• WP6 F2F - Berlin 10th October, 2012

• Cross WP1/6/7 - Berlin, 11th October, 2012

• WP6 F2F - Antwerp 5th February, 2013

• Cross WP1/6/7 - Antwerp 6th February, 2013

Two WP6 internal PIA evaluation workshops were organized

• Berlin, March 19th, 2013

43

• Munich, April 29th, 2013

Two stakeholder workshops were organized together with WP8 and the stakeholder coordi-nator. The stakeholder workshops 5 and 6 took place at:

• SW5 Ð Bled, 26th November 2012 (in conjunction with IoT Forum)

• SW6 Ð Helsinki, 19th June 2013 (together with the IoT Week)

Participation in IERC AC meetings:

• IERC AC1 Meeting, Brussels, 10th September 2012

• IERC AC1 Meeting, Regensdorf, 22nd November 2012

• IERC AC1 Meeting, Delft, 7th of February 2013

Organization and participation of additional expert meetings, that were not planned in thebeginning of the project:

• Expert meeting with Prof. Muller, Dortmund, 17th January 2013

• Business Case meeting (MUNICH project), Muenchen, 29th January 2013

• Industrial Company workshop (Bosch), Stuttgart, 13th March 2013

• Industrial Company workshop, Pisa (Alleantia), 23rd March 2013

• IERC AC1 Expert workshop, Heidelberg 15th Ð 16th April 2013


Opportunities in the third year period for disseminating IoT-A results:

• In general, WP6 interacts with stakeholders. This is supported by Rob v. Kranenburg,who is coordinating the IoT-A core stakeholders group.

• WP6 participated also in general dissemination events, i.e. IoT-Forum and IoT-Week

• Also, activities like the T6.4 Delphi study are communicated to a broad range of IoTexperts, increasing the visibility of IoT-A.

• Publication: A. Salinas Segura, E. Ho, C. Th§mmler, S. Meissner, A. Schneider, T. JellÒIs a RFID surgical towel detection system based on latest Future Internet Technologyworth its investment? - A business case studyÓ, submitted to IEEE ICC in Sydney,June 2014

44


All partners used a level of resources reasonable, given the time frame and the results.Due to the increased effort in T6.2 regarding the business case, UniWue shifted 2.5PM fromWP4 to WP6.The following efforts per partner were spent that are generally in line with the plan andcontributions:Partner Person.Month

(actual)HEU 3.27NXP DE 1.5SIEMENS 3.15HSG 4.41SAP 2.3UniS 0.0FHG IML 3.42NEC 0.17UniWue 7.46ALBLF 0.80

2.2.7. WP7


WP7 deals with the definition, implementation and validation of use cases which realizeIoT scenarios. The work package focuses on two main use cases for implementation ofthe future IoT in the most relevant sectors. Therefore a UC out of health & home and aUC out of retail & logistics was chosen. The overall goal is to show the applicability ofthe IoT Architectural Reference Model in different domains. Therefore the IoT ArchitecturalReference Model should be used and developed software components or devices of othertechnical work packages shall be included upon realization of the use cases.In the reporting period WP7 managed to implement the final demonstrators and perform avalidation on the use cases which corresponds to the overall completion of activities in WP7.In summary, the following activities took place

• Continued and final implementation of UC1 and UC2, integration and update of hard-ware / software components

• Demonstration of UC1 and UC2 on different occasions

• Contributed chapter to IoT Book

• Pilot of Transport Monitoring scene out of retail UC with stakeholder Groupe Casino

45

Due to changes at CATTID, a handover from the former CATTID group to the La SapienzaComputer Science Department (CSD) had to be handled, which also resulted in differentpeople taking over the activities.The work package 7 is divided in 4 tasks.

2.2.7.1.1 T7.1, Exact definition of use cases (by interaction of stakeholders) TaskT7.1 ended in M18 in period two with the exact definition of use case 1 and use case 2 indeliverable D7.2. Regarding the reporting period no further work was done on task T7.1.

2.2.7.1.2 T7.2, Implementation and prototyping Task T7.2 ended in M22 in period twowith a first implementation of use case prototypes.With the finalization of D7.2 and the beginning of task T7.2 with its matching objective O7.2,the integration of the developed set of mechanisms and protocols to operate in heteroge-neous IoT resources with diverse deployment environments was the central issue of WP7work.

2.2.7.1.3 T7.3, Proof, declaration and reflexion by the stakeholder group Within SW4a first demonstration of the implemented prototypes to IoT-A stakeholders and externals wasdone. In general the received feedback was positive on defined use case scenes. Furtherdemonstrations on IoT week 2012, FIA Dublin 2013 and IoT week 2013 gave further feed-back on the developed prototypes. On the retail use case, discussions were continued withGroupe Casino, who offered a platform to pilot parts of the retail UC in a real life scenario.The pilot was realized in the reporting period, the "Transport Monitoring" demonstrators wasadapted by Groupe Casino and will be continued to be used even after the end of the IoT-Aproject.Further hardware prototypes of WP5 were integrated in the use cases, e.g. NFC read-ers, transponders and sensor nodes with Moterunner in both use cases. T7.3 further inte-grated the other WP technical results and continously updated the first prototypes to the finaldemonstrators until M36.CSE delivered demo boards with embedded SW enhanchements & HW upgrades (new Lan-tiq versions for xDSDL support), supported the demos/SW updates of the GW and upgradedthe Lantiq Chip version on the GW. A implementation of use cases components was donewhich could be used as replacements (available for integration) in certain scenes:

• Integration of CEA-LETI Noisy Reader with M2M Layer on the Gateway platform to beused for medicine shortage scene

• Integration of company’s internal remote socket actuator on the Gateway platform tobe used for medicine shortage scene

• Implementation of the M2M Layer Interface to Service Resolution Infrastructure

CEA/LETI finalized the implementation of KEM security component which was shown in thehealth use case demonstrator.

46

SAP implemented its proposed retail use case scenes and finally demonstrated these withthe combination of FHG IML scenes in an integrated demonstrator at IoT week. FHG IMLand SAP and support with IBM implemented a trial with Groupe Casino out of the TransportMonitoring scene in a real environment.ALU-BE has implemented the health use cases as well as the setup and an implementationof an own version of the resolution framework of WP4. ALU-BE implemented and sharedwith the other partners the demo code for a log server that showcases the internal operationof the use case and provided support to the other partners for implementation of this service.Finally, ALU-BE designed and made available to the other partners the graphical design ofan icon set for the health use case.NXP-BE and NXP-DE supported the partners in selection process of appropriate hardwarecomponents. NXP-DE provided components from WP5 (Retail use case gateway, FlexboardReader, SmartTouch Card) to the retail and health use case. Furthermore, NXP-DE sup-ported the integration.IBM actively participated in several IoT-A related EU meetings and customer presentationsat our Industry Solutions Lab (ISL), giving demonstrations and showing the impact of thisEU project. We were working in close cooperation with project partners SAP and FhG IMLtowards the implementation of the logistics use cases as tangible results beyond specifica-tions.CSD (CATTID) WP7 effort in year 3 was mainly geared towards the design and developmentof IoT-A based scenes in the eHealth use case. Application and functional requirements of allUse Cases’ scenes have been mapped on the Domain and Functional Model. This processalso involved WP1 topics CATTID had worked on and was familiar with so it supported otherpartners in the process while providing useful feedback to WP1. This effort converged inD7.2. The development of the two scenes CATTID is responsible of was finished and aprototype of one of the two scenes was demonstrated Helsinki during the IoT week in June2013. This prototype was enhanced, with respect to what originally described, with thenewly implemented AuthN component, by thus being the unique prototype within the projectincluding also security mechanisms. It was also one of the 4 usecases presented during theFinal Review Project Meeting in Rome in December 2013.Preparations are on-going to deploy the logistics retail demonstrators in IML’s openID-centeras well as the SAP’s Future Retail Center and ALU-BE Homecare Lab for disseminating theoutcome of IoT-A to the industry even after the end of IoT-A project.

2.2.7.1.4 T7.4, Validation In D7.2 first results of WP1 ARM were validated. Out of theARM the domain model and functional decomposition were instantiated to show the appli-cability to model a real-world use case. All the proposed use cases in D7.2 are modelledwithin the (IR1.4-based) Domain Model, which led to numerous feedback rounds with WP1on usability purposes and gave qualitative results for upcoming D1.3 deliverable.In the reporting period the validation report D7.5 was finalized. Here, the final version ofthe IoT ARM was used to model the use cases. Included is also the use of the Guidelineswhich cover the process from application description up to the design choices regardingconcrete architectures. The unified requirements unified requirements were matched to theimplemented use case scenes, to see if every UR is covered.

47


In general, the following objectives were followed within the reporting period.

O2.1: Update and definition process for the use cases

In period two (M13-M24) D7.2 was delivered which defines the final use cases forHealth and Retail & Logistics domain. The work is based upon D7.1 out of first re-porting period (M1-12). In the reporting period the retail use case was adapted to theGroupe Casino scenario of Cool Chain Monitoring.

O2.2: Integration of the developed set of mechanisms and protocols to operate in het-erogeneous IoT resources with diverse deployment environments

Within D7.2 for each defined scene a set of applications, devices and functional com-ponents were defined which could be integrated within an implementation of a scene.In the reporting period the developed software components of e.g. WP2 (BPMN mod-elling and execution engine), WP3 (6lowpan protocol stack), WP4 (resolution frame-work) and devices of WP5 (sensor nodes with IBM’s Moterunner) were integrated inthe use case implementation.

O2.3: Technical implementation to the defined use cases home & health (including myspace) and retail & logistics by facilitating the integrated architecture

First demonstrators as prototypes of the defined D7.2 use cases and scenes wereimplemented in the reporting period resulting in D7.3. The continued implementationresulted in the final demonstrators in D7.4.

O2.4: Proof the applicability of the IoT architecture for single domains

A demonstration took place at the IoT week 2012 in Venice, where a first live appli-cability of the IoT architecture was shown with the focus on the retail&logistics usecase. The improved implementation of the demonstrators were shown at FIA Dublin,IoT week 2013 in Helsinki and ICT 2013 in Vilnius which showed the applicability inthe health use case. Here, a stakeholder driven demonstrator (MUNICH) shows a reallife application of tracking stomach towels in a surgery.

O2.5: Validation of the architecture in terms of use case implementation

The ARM proved to be applicable in all defined use which was shown in the validationreport of D7.5, delivered in the reporting period. In the reporting period a PrivacyImpact Assessment (PIA) was realized together with WP6 in several workshops.

During third year WP7 has produced three deliverables:

D7.3: Prototypes of UC1 and UC2

Released in Month 26, due Month 26 This deliverable was coordinated by CFR

D7.4: Demonstration of UC1 and UC2

Released in Month 34, due Month 34 This deliverable was coordinated by FHG IML

48

D7.5: Validation Report

Released in Month 36, due Month 35 This deliverable was coordinated by FHG IML

2.2.7.3 Meetings

During the third year WP7 had phone and web conferences on an almost two weekly basis,and several F2F and cross WP meetings.The list of physical meetings below:

• NXP Hamburg

• TSC meeting in Rome [29 April 2013]

• TSC meeting in Helsinki [16-20 June 2013]

• Rehearsal of final Review TSC meeting in Berlin [25 November 2013]


Opportunities in the second year period for disseminating IoT-A results:

• Demonstration of implemented use cases at FIA 2013 (Dublin), IoT week 2013 (Helsinki),ICT 2013 (Vilnius), where also a leaflets and posters where printed to guide the visitorsthrough the installation

• PIA workshop with WP6 at Stakeholder Workshop 5

• Presentations at IoT week 2013 (Helsinki) regarding use cases

• Inclusion of use case scenarios into IoT Book "Enabling Things To Talk"

Date Location Personel DescriptionMay 2013 Dublin, Ireland Martin Fiedler

(FHG IML)FIA 2013, demonstration of retail use case

June 2013 Helsinki, Fin-land

all WP7 part-ners

IoT week 2013, demonstration of use cases,including MUNICH

October2013

Lyon, France Benedikt MŁt-tig (FHG IML)

2013 IEEE 9th International Conference onWireless and Mobile Computing, Network-ing and Communications (WiMob), End-2-EndCold Chain Supervision based on an Internetof Things Architecture

November2013

Vilnius,Lithuania

all WP7 part-ners

ICT 2013, demonstration of use cases and IoTBook

49


All partners used a level of resources reasonable, given the time frame and the results.Generally the efforts are in line with the plan and contributions. Regarding the final im-plementation of the demonstrators (D7.4) an additional amout of ressources were neededfor FHG IML, which in addition also implemented the Groupe Casino trial, which was notplanned before.The following efforts per partner were spent:Partner Person.Month

(actual)SAP 9.23FHG IML 33.87HSG 4.67CATTID(SUni)

9

2.3. Project Management

2.3.1. Project Management during the periodThe management of IoT-A during the third year and the extended duration has been con-ducted as described in the Description of Work. Overall project management of IoT-A lieswith the coordinator VDI/VDE-IT. This includes efficient implementation of the Grant Agree-ment, the Description of Work with associated work plan according to its objectives, budgetand time-table.All management tasks relating to the delivery of important documents have been pilotedand managed by the coordinator to ensure a successful information flow, document man-agement, and due delivery.Project management is facilitated by the internal web-portal allowing for a high degree ofweb-enabled collaborative working on the level of the project and the work-package level,including group email functionality, mail and document repository as well as activity andfinancial reporting features.The main tasks consisted in (see detailed also in WP9)

• Monitor compliance of project interaction with the Consortium Agreement for IoT-A.

• Maintaining and enhancing an IoT-A stakeholder group.

• Monitoring progress of tasks in direct contact with WP- and Task-leader.

• Organising regular Technical Steering Committee meetings (phone conferences - ev-ery months and F2F-meetings).

• Implementing continuous internal reporting with objectives set in the description ofwork achieved and resources used.

50

• Maintaining the internal part of the IoT-A web-portal to facilitate efficient project man-agement.

• Reporting progress to the PO and discussing all project related issues.

• Editing and submitting an amendment request with regard to changes coming intoeffect for M12-M39 with consolidating and converging implications on efforts and costs.

• Editing and submitting an amendment request with regard to the extension of theproject duration until November 30, 2013 to allow for participation and showcasingthe projects result at ICT 2013 in Vilnius.

• Participating to IERC activities, in particular contributing to IERC Newsletters.

• Editing, assure quality and submit due deliverables.

• Editing and submit the Final Report (this document).

• Financial Administration of EC contribution payment and distribution to the partner.

• Organisation of the IoT-Stakeholder workshops under the auspice of WP6.

• Administration of travel cost reimbursements for external stakeholder workshop partic-ipants.

• Administration of framework contracts for stakeholder facilitator, validation and supportof health use case, IoT-A movie production, marketing assistance, trade fair presence.

• Seeking consent for overseas travel requests with the P.O.

2.3.2. Technical Steering Committee (TSC) meetingsThe following table gives the list of TSC meetings held F2F during the third year.Participation was good (mostly all WP where represented by the WP-leader or in some casesdeputies attended).Status Name Date Location Commentdone TSC 04.02.2013 Antwerp co-located to the General

Assemblydone TSC 19.06.2013 Helsinki co-located to IoT week

2013done TSC 17.09.2013 Rome on-site preparation for final

reviewdone TSC 25.11.2013 Berlin preparatory meeting for fi-

nal reviewIn addition to these regular F2F meetings a TSC ad-hoc meeting was convened co-locatedat the ICT event in Vilnius on November 7, 2013 for final preparation scheduling for the FinalReview.Regular TSC-phone conferences were held in 4 weeks-intervals beginning of each months,as well as on demand for specific topics.

51

2.3.3. Plenary Meetings

Status Name Date Locationdone General Assembly February 4-6,

2013Antwerp

done 2nd Year Review Meet-ing

November 19-22,2012

Zurich

done Intermediate ReviewMeeting

March 18, 2013 Berlin

done General Assembly June 20, 2013 Helsinkidone Final Review Meeting December 5-6,

2013Rome

2.3.4. Changes in the consortium

There have been following changes in the consortium:Beneficiary 21 - VTT entered the consortium with effective date on 01 October 2012 toreplace Beneficiary 13 - TID stepped out of the consortium with effective date of terminationon 29 February 2012. VTT as the most suitable replacement successfully and rapidly pickedup the work previously performed by TID and enhanced it substantially in the context ofWP4.Due to internal restructuring within University of Sapienza - Beneficiary 15 - responsibilityfor the IoT-A project was shifted from CATTID to the CSD (Computer Science Department)of the entity. Continuity was secured by the new responsible and the shift was professionallyconducted without causing disruptions in the context of our project.These changes with regard to the composition of the consortium did not impact the reachingof the objectives of the projects and the consortium reacted quickly and constructively toimplement the appropriate changes and measures.Besides these changes the involvement of supporting entities by framework contracts, namelythe stakeholder coordinator as well as for WP7 an SME validating the health UC, the mar-keting agency to enhance the outreach has proven most beneficial.

2.3.5. Payment

According to the projects regulations a fourth payment has been distributed to all partner tak-ing into considerations the reported and accepted costs and effort for the previous reportingperiod. Payment was effected on December 7, 2012.

2.3.6. IoT-A web-site

The IoT-A portal under the over-arching .eu domain has been implemented with the URLwww.iot-a.eu since the start of the project. Increasing numbers of visits to and clicks on thevarious levels of this site have been registered to a steady high level up to now. Download

52

facilities for our IoT-A movie, the IoT-A newsletter as well as the announcement of the IoT-A book and facilitation of downloads of all public deliverables immediately after availabilityhave further enhanced the traffic and being recognized as high quality content site.Also the google-news feed on "internet of things" added usefulness and attractiveness forthe IoT-A community by also encompassing actual current discussions on the topic.Below an overview on the webtraffic on www.iot-a.eu page for the current reporting period2012/2013 is depicted.

Summary by monthMonth Monthly Totals

Sites KBytes Visits Pages Files HitsDec 2013 5735 8635457 9839 35771 99013 122935Nov 2013 6216 12426628 11788 37489 121029 144998Oct 2013 6089 9717607 10443 32731 114328 134226Sep 2013 5908 11183225 9515 129875 195391 212821Aug 2013 5210 6684021 8153 27275 79935 95909Jul 2013 5272 7868554 9212 31894 99994 117333Jun 2013 5450 8408881 9146 42504 108589 134852May 2013 6142 8613750 8616 38963 116609 141127Apr 2013 4970 7151075 7287 31628 101053 121546Mar 2013 4807 7448002 6851 23380 84078 104426Feb 2013 4242 12088726 6014 24160 78683 94087Jan 2013 3858 6231918 5245 19466 69808 83831Dec 2012 4190 6312884 9769 28447 70463 84171Nov 2012 4521 8718046 10992 35388 94298 115485Oct 2012 4239 7081121 16007 39000 105249 129582Sep 2012 3819 6489197 12702 30639 85813 105205

53

2.4. Deliverables and Milestones Table

2.4.1. Milestones

Milestoneno.

Milestone name WPno.

Leadbenefi-ciary

DeliverydatefromAnnex I

Achieved Actual/ForecastDeliverydate

Comments

M6 Final architec-ture

WP1 33 yes 33

M7 Final UCdemonstra-tion

WP7 36 yes 36

M9 Second Year re-view meeting

WP9 25 yes 25

M10 Final reviewmeeting

WP9 36 yes 40

2.4.2. Deliverables

Del.no.

Deliverable name WPno.

Nature Dissem.level

DeliverydatefromAnnex I

Delivered ActualDeliverydate

D1.4 Converged architec-tural reference modelfor the IoT v2.0

WP1 R PU 26 yes 28

D1.5 Final architectural ref-erence model for theIoT v3.0

WP1 R PU 33 yes 33

D2.4 Tool Support for IoT-Aware Business Pro-cess Modeling

WP2 P CO 30 yes 33

D2.6 Events representationand processing

WP2 R PU 30 yes 33

D2.7 Security analysis andprotection techniques

WP2 R PU 30 yes 33

D3.4 Guidelines for Com-munication ProtocolDevelopment for IoT

WP3 R PU 30 yes 33

D3.5 M2M API definition WP3 R PU 30 yes 30D3.6 IOT Protocol Suite

definitionWP3 R PU 33 yes 33

54

D4.4 Final Design and Im-plementation Report

WP4 R CO 33 yes 34

D5.1 Energy aware IoT ar-chitecture

WP5 R CO 30 yes 31

D5.7 HW enablers: proto-typing

WP5 P CO 28 yes 28

D6.3 Final requirements list WP6 R PU 33 yes 33D6.4 Final validation report WP6 R PU 33 yes 35D7.4 Demonstration of UC

1 and UC 2WP7 D PU 34 yes 34

D7.5 Validation report WP7 R PU 35 yes 35D8.6 Organisation of 2nd

year eventWP8 O RE 25 yes 25

D8.7 Organisation of finalconference

WP8 O PU 35 yes 35

D8.8 Publishing at least 2IoT-A - progress re-ports

WP8 R PU 35 yes 35

D8.14Exploitation Plan finalversion

WP8 R RE 34 yes 34

D8.15Initiation of Pre-standardisationsupporter group

WP8 O PP 26 yes 26

D8.16Report on require-ments for standard-isation and possiblestandardisation tar-gets

WP8 R RE 32 yes 32

D8.18Information on statusof reference model tothe IERC

WP8 R PP 27 yes 27

D9.4 Action Plan third year WP9 R CO 24 yes 24

55

2.5. Overall use of resources in the IoT-A Consortium

The table below indicates actual Person/months figures as reported in period 3:No. Partner WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 WP7 WP8 WP9 Total Comment1 VDI/VDE-IT 15.45 12.95 28.402 HEU 3.54 10.06 3.27 4.08 6.05 27.003 NXP DE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > pending final figures4 SIEMENS 14.17 10.52 0.83 3.15 3.51 32.185 HSG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > pending final figures6 SAP 7.61 18.56 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.30 9.23 3.61 0.0 41.407 UniS 12.00 2.00 9.00 6.00 5.00 34.008 FHG IML 4.59 4.66 3.42 33.87 1.00 47.549 CEA 1.42 5.50 3.64 20.84 3.93 2.41 37.7410 NEC 2.89 3.21 28.72 0.17 2.71 37.7011 NXP BE 19.54 1.30 20.8414 IBM 8.39 2.77 11.1615 CATTID / CSD 5.10 12.00 11.90 9.00 0.50 38.5016 CFR 5.30 14.44 3.21 3.56 1.22 27.7317 CSE 12.60 5.17 3.00 3.45 24.2218 UniWue 2.00 7.46 1.50 2.35 13.3119 ALBLF 2.17 3.46 0.80 6.4320 ALU BE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 > pending final figures21 VTT 0.90 13.54 0.64 15.0830 UniP 5.80 5.80

Total 61.69 34.29 65.06 71.09 57.15 20.57 68.25 46.93 24.00 449.03 > pending total figures

2.5.1. Justification of resources per partner

Following section offers a detailed explanation of the different types of resources for period3.

2.5.1.1 VDI/VDE-IT

Justification of Resources

2.5.1.1.1 Cost and Contribution The following table illustrates the cost breakdown:Cost Cate-gories

RTD DemonstrationManagementOther Total

Personnel 0.00 0.00 80,570.47 88,874.57 169,445.04Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 49,341.70 49,341.70Subcontracting 0.00 0.00 14,240.65 224,897.43 239,138.08Direct costs 0.00 0.00 94,811.12 363,113.70 457,924.82Indirect costs 0.00 0.00 44,518.17 49,041.83 93,560.00Total costs 0.00 0.00 139,329.29 412,155.53 551,484.82Maximum ECcontribution

0.00 0.00 139,329.00 412,155.00 551,484.00

Receipts from IoT Weeks for participation fees amounting to

• e16.690 for IoT Week 2012

• e54.718 for IoT Week 2013

will be deducted from the EC contribution request

56

2.5.1.1.2 Workpackage Distribution of Effort The following table illustrates the distribu-tion of effort:Workpackage Distributionof Effort

Effort in WP(PM)

WP8 15.45WP9 12.95Total in WPs 28.40

2.5.1.1.3 Major Cost Items and Resources

Justification of Personnel In the project the following persons employed at VDI/VDE-ITwere actively involved:Sebastian Lange, Laure Quintin, Günter K"ulzhammer, Annette Schostak, Angelika Bertels,Silke Sperling, Tristan Crecelius

WP8 Personnel costs are related to the following activities and deliverables

• Project meetings (TSC, General Assembly, WP1, WP8, WP6, WP7)

• The project website www.iot-a.eu was maintained and enhanced by additional features.Maintaining and updating of the information hub website www.internet-of-things.eu tobe a central place for disseminating project relevant information but also to aggregateother relevant information related to the topic of IoT.

• Production of Information and dissemination material such as flyers, Newsletter, etc.

• Further dissemination took place at the various meetings and conferences: FIA Dublin,IFA 2013 Berlin

• A considerable amount of work was dedicated to organising and preparing

– IoT week 2013 in Helsinki– ICT 2013 in Vilnius

The following deliverables were produced in collaboration with the other partners of theprojects:

• D8.6 Organisation of the 2nd year event

• D8.7 Organisation of the final conference

• D8.8 Publishing IoT-A progress reports

• D8.14 Final Exploitation Plan

• D8.15 Initiation of Pre-standardisation supporter group

• D8.16 Report on requirements for standardisation and posssible standardisation tar-gets

57

WP9 According to the objectives of the WP VDI/VDE-IT took over most activities in thisWork Package except the technical coordination of the scientific part of the project.A lot of efforts were dedicated to the organization of the Review for Period 2, the Inter-mediate Review and the Final Review including realisation of the necessary reports andpreparation/organisation of

• Review Meeting in Zurich, November 18-22, 2012.

• Intermediate Review in Berlin, March 18, 2013

• Final Review in Rome, December 4-5, 2013

The following deliverable was produced and revised following the request from the Reviewfor Period 2 in collaboration with the other partners of the projects:

• D9.4 Action Plan third year

Other Costs

• Travels:

– > pending final list

– TSC / General Assembly Meeting Antwerp

– Future Networks Concertation Meeting of the European Commission, Brussel,October 23, 2013: Külzhammer

– IoT week 2013 Helsinki, June 18-22, 2013: Quintin, Külzhammer, Sperling

– ICT 2013 Vilnius

– Final Review Meeting

• Subcontracted Costs

Under "Other Activities"

Here are all costs incurred through production of dissemination material, related to theorganisation of events or for running telephone-conferences and meetings.

– > pending final list

– IoT-A Review Meetings

– IoT Stakeholder Workshops / Reimbursement of travel costs for external stake-holder

– Design IoT Week 2013 Website

– Various Telephone-conferences for project management

– Framework Contract with Resonance Design (Rob van Kranenburg) as Stake-holder community facilitator

– IoT Week 2013 costs for catering, room rent and side costs / Reimbursement oftravel costs for key-note speakers

58

2.5.1.2 HEU




Personnel 60,950.20 0.00 45,725.54 30,807.82 137,483.56Other 27,543.34 0.00 28,454.02 28,602.36 84,599.72Subcontracting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Direct costs 88,493.54 0.00 74,179.56 59,410.18 222,083.28Indirect costs 25,048.89 0.00 23,287.71 10,163.87 58,500.47Total costs 113,542.43 0.00 97,467.27 69,574.05 280,583.75Requested ECcontribution

56,771.00 0.00 97,467.00 69,574.00 223,812.00


Effort in WP(PM)

WP1 3.54WP3 10.06WP6 3.27WP8 4.08WP9 6.05Total in WPs 27.00

Hitachi Europe Ltd was in charge of the Technical coordination of the whole project, theWork Package 3 Leadership, and leadership of a number of Tasks (T3.1, T3.4, T6.3, T8.4,T8.5, T8.6, T9.3), and participation in WP1, WP3, WP6, WP8, WP9.As Technical Coordinator, Hitachi Europe, Ltd supervised the output of the whole project,with particular regards to WP1, where a specific attention was given. As Cornerstone WP,outputs and activities of WP1 were closely monitored: partial contributions were checked,watchdog of modelling and architectural activities in the rest of the world, assuring no signif-icant time delays and topic coherence was assured.Furthermore, for what concerns WP1, Hitachi Europe Ltd was in charge of the Communica-tion Model; the old model was changed radically twice, once for D1.4 and a second time forD1.5. On top of this, all requirements related to Communication aspects of the ARM werereviewed, approved and a corrective action ws performed, or rejected, and an explanationwas given.The bulk of Hitachi Europe Ltd effort was in WP3, where activities were encompassing all as-pects: from the leadership of WP, to the editorship of D3.4, to several important contributionin all deliverables and all tasks.In WP6, Hitachi Europe activities were focused on Task 6.3. Working closely with Rob vanKranenburg, Stakeholder Coordinator, two stakeholders meeting were organised, in Bled

59

and in Helsinki, and important feedback was gathered and processed in order to validatethe work done. Furthermore, several meetings and workshop were organised with differententities, in order to gather first-hand reaction on the different aspects of the technical work.Activities within this WP also encompassed the review of the deliverable D6.4In WP8, Hitachi Europe led the dissemination of the project with a number of trips, mainlyto give invited talks to high-level events and meetings. Hitachi Europe Ltd attended morethan 20 events, ranging from the United States, Taiwan, Japan, Brasil, China, and of courseEurope, in order to disseminate properly the results of the project. Furthermore, HitachiEurope Ltd was responsible for interactions with the IERC cluster, and for standardisationactivities at IETF and at ITU-T.in WP9, the Technical Coordination and Supervision among all different activities of theproject was assured, together with a proper communication with EC bodies and representingthe project in meetings with the commission.

2.5.1.3 NXP DE




Personnel 188,434.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 188,434.00Other 154,644.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 154,644.00Subcontracting 160,580.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 160,580.00Direct costs 503,658.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 503,658.00Indirect costs 101,465.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 101,465.00Total costs 605,123.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 605,123.00Requested ECcontribution

302,561.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 302,561.00


Effort in WP(PM)

> pending

2.5.1.4 SIEMENS


2.5.1.4.1 Cost and Contribution The following table illustrates the cost breakdown:

60

Cost Cate-gories


Personnel 261,034.00 0.00 0.00 31,994.00 293,028.00Other 0.00 0.00 1,559.00 0.00 1,559.00Subcontracting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Direct costs 261,034.00 0.00 1,559.00 31,994.00 294,587.00Indirect costs 189,503.00 0.00 0.00 24,359.00 213,862.00Total costs 450,537.00 0.00 1,559.00 56,353.00 508,449.00Requested ECcontribution

225,268.00 0.00 1,559.00 56,353.00 283,180.00


Effort in WP(PM)



WP1 Personnel: Christine Jardak and Joachim W. WalewskiTogether with VTT, Siemens conducted a final review of D1.5.Siemens contributed and filed dozens of Redmine comments against D1.4.T1.1 &T1.2Siemens made major contributions to the Functionality Group ”Management” and thereincontained functional components. Siemens also made major contributions to thereto relatedtext (IoT Functional Model and functional view).T1.3During the reporting period, Siemens acted as task-force leader for T1.3 ”Best Practice,”which produced Chapter 5 (”Guidance”) in D1.5 ( 170 pages)

• Contribution to IR1.5

– Reviewing and commenting sections of partners

– Updating of our own Best-Practice contributions (IoT Domain Model).

• Managing the Best-Practice task force:

– Planning the contribution of each partner (resources, technical content, time line,internal reviews and comments, etc . . . )

– Organisation teleconferences in order to follow up the work.

61

– The task was grouped into 5 subtasks

∗ Process∗ Towards a concrete architecture∗ Reference manuals∗ Interactions∗ Reverse mapping

Siemens did not only act as T1.3 leader but also made major contributions to Chapter 5

• We single-handedly wrote Sections 5.1 (Overview), 5.2.1-5.2.7, and 5.7.

• We collaborated with our mobility business unit in order to discuss their problems andpropose new innovative architecture solutions. We devised four innovative ideas for ad-vanced parking services. These ideas were submitted as Siemens-internal innovationreports, and two of the ideas were filed as patent applications.

• After discussing and understanding the current architecture of the on-street parkingsystem with Siemens experts, we have proposed to re-architect this system using theIoT ARM. This work was summarised in Section 5.3 (Toward a concrete architecture).

F2F Meetings

• Berlin, 2012-10-08, MUNICH coordination meeting; participation

• Berlin, 2013-10-09 to -11, plenary meeting; participation

– Presentations

∗ Status of T1.3∗ Status of Management Functionality Group∗ Communication-Model ”crisis”∗ Meetings with WP2 and WP4 in order to address management-related re-

quirements

• Guildford, 2012-11-04 to -05, D1.5 kick off; participation

– Presentations

∗ Proposal on how to shape AC1 feedback∗ Proposal on ARM videos∗ Structure of Guidance Chapter in D1.5∗ Proposal on Section addressing interaction patterns (Section 5.5)∗ T1.3 planning

• Regensdorf, 2012-11-20 to -21, 2nd-year review

– Provided slides on T1.3 progress

62

• Antwerp, 2013-02-04 to -06; participation

– Presentations

∗ T1.3 report∗ Two presentations on outcome of architecture workshop with Gerrit Muller

(WP1/6)∗ Content of D1.5 review and work split with VTT

• Rome, 2013-04-29 to -30; participation

– Presentations

∗ T1.3 status∗ Status of Redmine comments∗ Planning of WP1 Session (”Brothers in ARM”) @ IoT Week in Helsinki

• Helsinki, 2013-06-16 to -20; participation

– Presentation of architecture-process slides @ ”Brothers in ARM” session

• Munich, 2013-09-13, First Siemens-internal workshop on IoT ARM

• Munich, 2013-10-18, Second Siemens-internal workshop on IoT ARM

• Beijing, China, 2013-10-31, Third Siemens-internal workshop on IoT ARM

• Karlsruhe, 2013-11-26, Siemens-internal workshop on IoT ARM and potential usagein Industry 4.0

Teleconferences

• WP1, 2012-09-07; participation

• T1.3, 2012-09-13; lead

• T1.2, 2012-09-13, Management Functionality Group; lead




• WP1, 2012-12-04; lead

• WP1, 2012-12-18; lead

• T1.3, 2013-01-07; lead

• T1.3, 2013-01-08; lead

63

• WP1, 2013-01-08; lead

• T1.3, 2013-01-22; lead



• T1.3, 2013-03-15; lead

• WP1, 2013-03-05; lead




WP2 ”Orchestration and Integration into the Future Internet Service” Personnel: Sil-vio Becher, Christian Kleegrewe, Gerd VölksenT2.4"Complex Event Processing in IoT Architectures”D2.5 "Adaptive, Fault-tolerant Orchestration of Distributed IoT Service Interactions”Development of methods and techniques for:

• Self-Configuration of Services for Global State Detection

• Self-Optimization for Global State Detection

• Self-Healing for Global State Detection

Focus is the utilisation of look-up and discovery mechanisms from WP4 for the subscriptionof configuration data and service-configuration data during start-up and runtime.D2.6 ”Event Representation and Processing” Coordination and task management work:

• Physical meeting and phone conferences among WP2 partners contributing to D2.6

• Editorial work: editing, integration of contributions, transfer of the final document ver-sion to the project management

• Review of contributions

• Preparation of slides onD2.6 final and intermediate result for presentation at generalassemblies and final review.

CEP Architecture design:

• Requirement Engineering and Architecture-Design Methodology

• CEP Reference Architecture: extension of the EPTS functional RA towards a dis-tributed CEP RA:

64

– Functional RA, Information RA, Interaction RA

– Publish/Subscribe of events

• Derivation of a more concrete CEP architecture design:

– Functional Architecture: Event-Source Wrapper, Event Broker, Event ProcessingUnit, Event Channel, synchronisation, leasing, filtering, spatial reasoning, state-full rules

– Information Architecture: Data models for Events, event description, and eventspecification

– Communication Architecture for event transfer and event brokerage: Protocols be-tween Event Source Wrapper, Event Broker, Event Processing Unit, Event Chan-nel

– Event-filtering and aggregation templates: on value, on time-out, on location (spa-tial reasoning)

– Deployment to a physical environment

– State-full rules and global system-state model

F2F MeetingsPlenary and Work Package Meeting, Berlin, October 9-11, 2012

• General Assembly: presentation of D2.6 interim status

• WP2 meetings:

– Finalisation of D2.5 "Adaptive, Fault-tolerant Orchestration of Distributed IoT Ser-vice Interactions"

– Continuation of D2.6 "Event Representation and Processing"

Plenary and Work-Package Meeting, Antwerp, February 4-6, 2013

• General Assembly: presentation of T2.4/D2.6 interim status

• WP2 Meeting: continuation of D2.6 ”Event Representation and Processing”

• X-WP meeting with WP1

Work-package Meeting T2.4, Munich, April 25-26, 2013

• Review of interim deliverable status

• Work coordination and assignment

• Development of spatial reasoning

• Phone conference with absent partners

Phone Conferences

65

• November 6, 2012: D2.5 finalisation; participation

• January 15, 2013: WP2; participation

• January 17, 2013: D2.6 lead; work coordination

• February 21, 2013: D2.6 lead; work coordination

• March 7, 2013: D2.6 lead; work coordination

• March 14 ,2013: D2.6 lead; work coordination

• March 21, 2013: D2.6 lead; work coordination

• April 4, 2013: D2.6 lead; work coordination, monitoring of progress

• April 18, 2013: D2.6 lead; work coordination, monitoring of progress

• May 2, 2013: D2.6 lead; work coordination, monitoring of progress

• May 8, 2013: D2.6 lead; work coordination, monitoring of progress

• May 23, 2013: D2.6 lead; internal review feed-back

• May 28, 2013: D2.6 lead; internal review feed-back

• May 29, 2013: D2.6 lead; final internal review feed-back

WP4 Personnel: Andreas Ziller

• Implementation of P2P Lookup

– Java implementation extending Open Chord with IoT-A specific features and inter-faces

– RESTful web service for providing lookup functionality using JAX-RS

– Nodes can run either on different machines or on the same machine using differ-ent processes and different ports. Communication between instances is put ontop of TCP/IP.

– Integration into IoT-Service Resolution concept

– Contributed to WP7 demonstrator

• D4.4 Final Design and Implementation Report

• Documentation of P2P lookup implementation

• Description of interface function and data model

• Analytical evaluation of approach

66

WP6 Personnel: Norbert Vicari (WP6 lead), Christian Winkler, Joachim W. WalewskiIn the course of the report period, we were leading WP6. This included activities in alltasks, i.e. T6.1 Ð Requirements collection and analysis, T6.2 Ð Architecture, Business andSocio-Economic validation and T6.3 Ð Stakeholder Interaction and Validation.We organised weekly WP6 telephone conferences for the purpose of coordinating and driv-ing WP6Õs progress. We carried out the management tasks of WP6. This included therequired extensive WP activity reporting for WP6 in the 2nd-year activity report and thepreparation of WP6 contributions for the 2nd-year review.We were heavily involved in the preparation of the WP6 F2F meetings and Cross WP1/6/7meetings to organize the validation activities of WP6. These were collocated the two Gasduring the report interval. In addition, we organized and participated in the IoT-A internalworkshops regarding the PIA evaluation.Regarding interaction with stakeholders, we were active in preparatory discussions for thepreparation of the IERC AC1 interaction and for the Stakeholder Workshop 5 in Bled. Forthe IERC AC1 meeting in Brussels, we contributed with the preparation/design of a ques-tionnaire for validation of the ARM. We evaluated and post processed the questionnaire afterthe meeting. We were involved in the planning of the expert workshop with industrial partici-pants (e.g. BOSCH) and the expert workshop with IERC AC1 projects. We were driving thepreparation, execution and evaluation of the expert workshop regarding ARM methodologywith Gerrit Muller.Contributions to deliverables/documents:

• Review and discussion of content of IR6.2 (October, 15-17)

• Review, discussion and contributions to D6.3

• Review, discussion and contributions to D6.4

Meeting participation: In the function as WP lead we participated at the TSC meeting in

• Berlin, October 9th, 2012

• Regensdorf, November 19th, 2012

• Antwerp, February 4th, 2013

In the function as WP lead we participated at the 2nd year review in

• Regensdorf, November 20th-21st , 2012

In the function as WP lead we participated at the interim review in


We participated in the GA and F2F WP6 and Cross WP1/6/7 meeting in

• Berlin, October 10th Ð 11th, 2012

67

• Antwerp, February 5th Ð 6th, 2013

We participated at the IERC AC1 meeting in

• Brussels, September 10th, 2012

• Regensdorf, 22nd November, 2012

• Delft, 7th February 2013

We participated in the ARM methodology workshop in

• Dortmund, 17th January 2013

We participated in the IERC IoT-A expert workshop in

• Heidelberg, 15th -16th April 2013

We participated in the PIA evaluation workshops in


• Munich, April 29th, 2013 (also hosting the workshop)

WP8 Personnel: Mikhail Roshchin, Norbert Vicari, Gerd VŽlksen, Joachim W. WalewskiT8.1 Dissemination

• Contribution to summary paper of IoT ARM (for IEEE IoT Journal)

• Preparation of paper manuscript on ”reverse-engineering” undocumented systems byaid of IoT ARM (together with UniS and UniWue)

• Technical editor of IoT-A Newsletters 2-5

• Contributions to Newsletters 2-5 (interview Joachim W. Walewski; ”State of the Deliv-erables”; interview with Sanford Klausner)

• High-level review of ”Cookbook”

T8.3 Exploitation

• During the reporting period, Siemens acted as task leader.

– Lead of task force ”industrial exploitation”

– Siemens-internal exploitation activities (presentations on CEP)

– Siemens Business Unit for Industry Automation in the scope of the German initia-tive Industrie 4.0

– Siemens Corporate Technology

68

∗ Networks & Communication∗ System Engineering∗ Automation & Control

– Presentation of CEP for the Customer Services unit of SiemensÕ sector Energy

– Presentation of CEP for the mobility unit of the SiemensÕ sector Infrastructures& Cities

F2F meetings

• Helsinki, 2013-06-19; industrial exploitation; participation and preparation of slide set

• Berlin, 2013-11-25; final-review preparation meeting; participation

Teleconferences

• 2013-10-17 with CITYPULSE (advice on how to use D1.5)

Work on D8.14 ”Exploitation Plan Final Version”

• Collection of partner contributions

• Editorship

• Write up of SiemensÕs exploitation activities

• Write up of more than 20 new pages (Sections 1 to 5)

Teleconferences

• 2013-03-08, analysis of review comments with project led; lead

• 2013-03-13, D8.14 kick off; lead

• 2013-04-16, D8.14 update; lead

• 2013-05-03, D8.14 status; lead

• 2013-05-07, industrial exploitation; lead

• 2013-05-28, D8.14 synch with project lead; lead

T8.6 Interaction with IERC cluster

• Participation in AC1 IERC meeting in Delft (2013-02-07 to -08)

– Presentation on IoT-A usage

– Compilation AC1 meeting notes (together with Martin Bauer, NEC)

69

2.5.1.5 HSG




Personnel 113,451.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 113,451.54Other 6,107.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,107.84Subcontracting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Direct costs 119,559.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 119,559.38Indirect costs 71,735.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71,735.00Total costs 191,294.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 191,294.38Requested ECcontribution

143,470.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 143,470.00


Effort in WP(PM)

> pending


• WP4 IR4.3 Initial Design and Implementation report Integration of WP4 results intoWP7 demos

• WP6 D6.4 Final Validation report: includes development of business case for IoT-Aapplications and integration of technology from the MUNICH project in the context ofIoT-A

• WP7 D7.4 Demonstration of UC1 and UC2 D7.5 Validation Report - includes demon-stration of results in IoT Week 2013 in Helsinki and project final review in Rome

• WP8 D8.14 - Exploitation Plan, Final Version Book Chapter contribution for the book"Enabling Things to Talk: Designing IoT solutions with the IoT Architectural ReferenceModel" (Chapter 12: ARM Testimonials) Submitted paper based on WP6 results "Isa RFID surgical towel detection system based on latest Future Internet Technologyworth its investment? - A business case study." to the "2014 Americas Conference onInformation Systems"

2.5.1.6 SAP


70



Personnel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Other 288,567.00 0.00 0.00 34,761.00 323,328.00Subcontracting 0.00 0.00 9,800.00 0.00 9,800.00Direct costs 288,567.00 0.00 9,800.00 34,761.00 333,128.00Indirect costs 314,631.00 0.00 0.00 36,998.00 351,629.00Total costs 603,198.00 0.00 9,800.00 71,759.00 684,757.00Requested ECcontribution

301,599.00 0.00 9,800.00 71,759.00 383,158.00


Effort in WP(PM)

WP1 7.61WP2 18.56WP6 2.30WP7 9.32WP8 3.61Total 41.40

2.5.1.6.3 Major Cost Items and Resources In WP1, SAP has performed the followingactivities:

• SAP acted as editor for D1.4 and contributed significantly to D1.5, e.g. with the reversemapping or the red thread example and intensive reviewing activities.

• The submitted IEEE journal paper had Carsten Magerkurth (SAP) as co-author, like-wise SAP contributed as author to the IoT-A Springer book

• In task D1.1, SAP has contributed significantly to the revised version of the DomainModel integrating feedback collected from the discussions with IERC AC1. The feed-back on the Domain Model was integrated to D1.4/D1.5 by SAP. SAP also contributedto the revised chapter on the Domain Model in D1.4 / D1.5. Accordingly, SAP acted asDomain Model TF lead.

• SAP lead the Perspectives task force and has contributed most of the respective sec-tions within D1.4 and D1.5 as well as organizing and scheduling the work and in thetask force. Additionally, SAP participated in the Information Model Task Force andcontributed to the respective chapter inD1.4 / D1.5.

• For the Functional Decomposition, SAP contributed the descriptions of the new func-tional components of Business Process Modeling and Business Process Execution,both being described in D1.4/ D1.5.

71

• The local organization of the Y2 review was done by SAP and hosted at SAP Re-gensdorf. Co-located was the ERC Activity Chain 1 meeting in which SAP gave anintro session about giving feedback to the ARM. Accordingly, SAP acted as one of theadmins of the redmine feedback tool.

• At IoT week, SAP gave the presentation of the red-thread example in the ARM andactually contributed this part to D1.5.

In WP2, SAP has performed the following activities:

• SAP served as WP lead in WP2, organising all meetings and structuring the work inWP2.

• SAP has contributed significant parts to deliverables D2.4, D2.5, D2.6, D2.7 in thereporting period, serving as editor for D2.4 and D2.7. SAP has also contributed mostparts of D2.4 and D2.7.

• The main achievement of SAP in WP2 was the final version of the business processmodelling environment supporting the business process modelling notation BPMN 2.0,which was evaluated by us as the most IoT suitable state of the art approach. Theprocess model comprises a graphical and a-non graphical XML representation, whichis an initial step for progressing with the process resolution and execution.

• The second major contribution to WP2 was writing and delivering D2.7 on securingservices and processes in IoT dealing with security from a WP2 perspective, i.e. thechallenges of securing processes and services that interact with IoT systems.

In WP6, SAP has performed the following activities:

• SAP was editor for D6.3: ”Final requirements list", Released in Month 33

• SAP was also a major contributor to D6.4: ”Final validation report, Released in Month36

• The technological validation of the architecture was performed in the largest parts bySAP.

• The requirements cross-validation and mapping with the requirements of other ICTprojects was performed by SAP, likewise the Use Case mapping to WP7.

• SAP also hosted most of the weekly WP6 calls.

In the reporting period of WP7, the activities of SAP were focused on the definition andimplementation of UC1 for which SAP acts as a leading partner.Together with IBM and Fraunhofer, SAP has performed the Groupe Casino cool chain trial,fo which SAP has implemented the entire backend infrastructure. This trial was highly visibleand will continue even after the project end. SAP considers this as a major success for theentire project.

72

A significant amount of effort invested by SAP in the reporting period also relates to the finalimplementation and prototyping of the retail scenes. Here, SAP has developed a complexdemonstration environment within the Future Retail Center that combines outputs from WP4(Service Resolution), WP2 ( Process Modelling) and WP5 (MoteRunner Hardware). It ishighly interlinked with the logistics demonstrator developed by Fraunhofer and freuqentlyshown together.A demonstration of the second generation of the Sensor Based Quality Control was show-cased at the IoT Week 2013 integrated with a complementary demonstration by IML and byIBM. .The demonstrator was shown at the Year 2 review as a highlight of the project and laterstayed deployed at the Future Retail Center for customer presentations.In WP8, SAP has performed the following major activities:

• Ongoing development of the web platform www.iot4bpm.de that hosts the SAP WP2modelling tool for IoT augmented business processes

• Installation of the latest version of the retail demonstrator in the Future Retail CenterShowroom as a permanent exhibition for SAPÕs customers

• SAP also heavily utilized the Groupe Casino trial as a showcase for its forthcomingM2M platform product.

• The "PeTRE: Workshop on Pervasive Technologies in Retail Environments" was con-ducted at the UbiComp 2013 conference to propagate IoT-A results.

• Important scientific dissemination in the reporting period includes:

– Sonja Meyer, Andreas Ruppen, Carsten Magerkurth, Internet of Things-awareProcess Modeling: Integrating IoT Devices as Business Process Resources, InProceedings of 25th International Conference on Advanced Information SystemsEngineering, Valencia, Spain, 2013.

– Matthias Thoma, Klaus Sperner, Torsten Braun, Carsten Magerkurth: Integrationof WSNs into Enterprise Systems based on Semantic Physical Business Entities,Wireless Days (WD), 2013 IFIP , Valencia, Spain, 2013

– Matthias Thoma, Martin Fiedler, Carsten Magerkurth, Klaus Sperner, BenediktMaettig: End-2-End Cold Chain Supervision based on an Internet of Things Ar-chitecture, 9th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Net-working and Communications (WiMob), IoTÕ2013 , Lyon, France, October 7 - 9,2013

– Matthias Thoma, Alexandru-Florian Antonescu, Theano Mintsi, Torsten Braun:Linked Services for M2M Communications, Proceedings of IWCMC 2013

– Matthias Thoma, Alexandru-Florian Antonescu, Theano Mintsi, Torsten Braun:Linked Services for Enabling Interoperability in the Sensing Enterprise, Interna-tional Conference on Enterprise Interoperability (IWEI 2013) , Vol. 144, March,2013, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Springer, DOI 10.1007/978-3-64

73

– Matthias Thoma, Sonja Meyer, Klaus Sperner, Stefan Meissner, Torsten Braun:On IoT-services: Survey, Classification and Enterprise Integration, 2012 IEEEInternational Conference on Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom), Besancon, France, November 20 - 23, 2012

2.5.1.7 UniS




Personnel 196,506.65 0.00 34,523.62 33,672.17 264,702.44Other 8,640.57 0.00 2,195.41 12,718.00 23,553.98Subcontracting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Direct costs 205,147.22 0.00 36,719.03 46,390.17 288,256.42Indirect costs 170,323.19 0.00 26,756.09 19,369.26 216,448.54Total costs 375,470.41 0.00 63,475.12 65,759.43 504,704.96Requested ECcontribution

281,602.00 0.00 63,475.00 65,759.00 410,836.00


Effort in WP(PM)



WP1

• Work package lead (organisation of Phc and dissemination events, F2f meeting, or-ganisation of work, minutes taking etc ...)

• deputy tech. coordination

• Contributions to the D1.5

• Review of D1.4

• Editor of D1.5

74

• lead work of compiling Design Choices addressing qualitative requirements of the IoTARM

• contributed Design Choices addressing Availability and Resilience

• undertook reverse engineering exercises to proof applicability of IoT ARM for architec-ture recovery

• edited book "Enabling Things to Talk" published at Springer

• contributed to Functional Model and Functional View, especially to the specification ofmanagement functionalities

• responsible for specification of Service Organisation Functional Group

• contributed results to deliverables D1.4 and D1.5

• attended all general assembly as well as other face to face meetings concerning ourwork

• attended all conference calls

• reviewed and finalised unified requirements for WP2 related requirements

• Travel costs (RTD):

– 1 person attended a project general assembly in Berlin, Germany on the 09.10.12- 12.10.12 at a cost of e859.81

– 1 person attended a project workshop in Antwerp, Belgium on the 22.10.12 -24.10.12 at a cost of e611.34

– 2 people attended a project review in Zurich, Switzerland on the 19.11.12 - 21.11.12at a cost of e1,558.88

– 1 person attended a project workshop in Munich, Germany on the 28.01.13 -30.01.13 at a cost of e470.60

– 3 people attended a project general assembly in Antwerp, Belgium on the 04.02.13- 06.02.13 at a cost of e2,318.47

– 1 person attended a project meeting in Berlin, Germany on the 16.03.13 - 19.03.13at a cost of e981.78

– 1 person attended a project meeting in Rome, Italy on the 28.04.13 - 30.04.13 ata cost of e907.94

– 1 person attended IoT Week in Helsinki, Finland on the16.06.13 - 18.06.13 at acost of e931.75

• Consumables (RTD):

– Bank charges of e14.09

75

WP2

• lead Task 2.2 Orchestration and Management of Distributed Services

• coordinated work about self-managing service orchestrations and service composi-tions

• advised partner SAP during development of the BPM tool developed for D2.4

• contributed to self-configuration capabilities for service orchestration ad composition

• contributed extensions to IoT sevice descriptions to capture QoS and QoI parameters

• contributed Event Model to task T2.4 Complex Event Processing

• contributed service choreography approach with use of CEP services

• contributed results to deliverable D2.5 and D2.6

• editorship for D2.5

• attended Year 2 review meeting in Regensdorf, Switzerland

• attended all general assembly as well as other face to face meetings concerning ourwork

• attended all WP2 conference calls

WP4

• lead Task 4.3 (Managing Dynamic Associations between IoT Resources and RealWorld Entities)

• deputy Work Package leader (participated and reported WP4 progress at TSC calls)

• implemented and evaluated Semantic Web-based service and VE resolution for theResolution Infrastructure (RI), including integration with the overall infrastructure andintegrated evaluation

• contributed implementations to the RI for the demonstrators showcased at IoT Week2013 and annual review

• contributed to D4.4, IR4.3

• reviewed D4.4 (designated official reviewer)

• attended all WP4 conference calls and F2F meetings

76

WP8

• contributed to book ”Enabling Things to Talk: Designing IoT solutions with the IoT Ar-chitectural Reference Model. Edited by Alessandro Bassi, Martin Bauer, Martin Fiedler,Thorsten Kramp, Rob van Kranenburg, Sebastian Lange and Stefan Meissner. Berlin:Springer, 2013.”

• participation at dissemination events and presentation of a ARM introduction at HelsinkiIOT Week + other dissemination (see table)

• gave tutorial about use of Design Choices and Functional View at IoT week 2013 inHelsinki

• contributed to journal paper submission to IEEE Internet of Things

• Co-editor of conference papers (iThings 2013) on Doman Model and IEEE IoT ForumSeoul 2014.

• contributing to journal paper submission to IEEE Software

• contributed to journal paper submission:

– Suparna De (UniS), Benoit Christophe (ALBLF), Klaus Moessner (UniS); "Se-mantic Enablers for Dynamic Digital-Physical Object Associations in a FederatedNode Architecture for the Internet of Things", Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks Journal,March 2013

– Gilbert Cassar, Payam Barnaghi, Klaus Moessner (UniS), "Probabilistic Match-making Methods for Automated Service Discovery", IEEE Transactions on Ser-vices Computing Journal, 2013

• contributed to conference paper

– Gilbert Cassar, Payam Barnaghi, Wei Wang, Suparna De, Klaus Moessner (UniS),"Composition of Services in Pervasive Environments: A Divide and Conquer Ap-proach", 18th IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications, July 2013

• Travel Costs (OTH):

– 1 person attended an IoT conference in Beijing, China on the 20.04.13 - 26.04.13at a cost of e3,160

– 1 person was part of the British delegation to an IoT meeting in Taiwan on the31.05.13 - 08.06.13 at a cost of e2,100.36

– 2 people attended IoT Week in Helsinki, Finland on the 16.06.13 - 20.06.13 at acost of e3,189.88

– 1 person attended the Future Network and Mobile Summit in Lisbon, Portugal onthe 02.07.13 - 04.07.13 at a cost of e1,638.29

77

– 2 people attended an ICT event in Vilnius, Lithuania on the 06.11.13 - 09.11.13 ata cost of e1,513.70

– 1 person attended the IEEE Internet of things Conference in Besancon, Franceon the 19.11.13 - 23.11.13 at a cost of e1,116.16

WP9

• Travel costs (MGT)

– 1 person attended a project GA and TSC meeting in Berlin, Germany on the06.10.13 - 11.10.13 at a cost of e841.35

– 1 person attended a project TSC meeting in Roma, Italy on the17.09.13 at a costof e576.24

– 1 person attended a final review preparation meeting in in Berlin, Germany on the23.11.13 - 25.11.13 at a cost of e777.82

2.5.1.8 FHG IML




Personnel 228,259.50 0.00 17,669.96 0.00 245,929.46Other 10,491.19 0.00 6,501.55 0.00 16,992.74Subcontracting 0.00 0.00 3,600.00 0.00 3,600.00Direct costs 238,750.69 0.00 27,771.51 0.00 266,522.20Indirect costs 134,151.47 0.00 10,619.12 0.00 144,770.59Total costs 372,902.16 0.00 38,390.63 0.00 411,292.79Requested ECcontribution

279,676.00 0.00 38,390.00 0.00 318,066.00


Effort in WP(PM)



78

Work Package 1• FhG IML was responsible for the section ”information model” and ”information view”

in D1.4 and D1.5. Beside the technical work this action includes the organisation andplanning of meeting, phone conferences, subtasks and the implementation of internaland stakeholderÕs feedback to the information model and view.

• Review of several chapters in D1.4 and D1.5.

• Contributions to Best practices, Requirements, red-thread example.

• Presentation of the ARM in industry workshops (BOSCH) and during the IoT-Week2013 in Helsinki.

Work Package 3• FhG IML was responsible for the editorial work for IR3.4. Beside the technical work

this action includes the organisation and planning of phone conferences and subtasks.

• FhG IML has done the editorial review of D3.4, D3.6

• FhG IML updated and finalized the WP3 internal requirements.

Work Package 6• WP6 Meeting Participation

– WP6 Stakeholder workshop #5 in Bled

• Contribution to D6.4

– Privacy Impact Assessment analysis on specific use case– Contribution of PIA chapter to D6.4

• Participation in WP6-related phone conferences

Work Package 7 FHG IML was the responsible work package leader and therefore workedon management activities

• Responsible task leader for T7.1

• Responsible editor for D7.2

• Contributed three scenes to D7.2

• Interaction with WP5 regarding possible inclusion of hardware elements in WP7

• Interaction with WP1 best practices group

• Interaction with WP1 functional decomposition group

• Implementation of UC2 (Retail) scenes

• Demonstration of UC2 (Retail) scenes at IoT week 2012, Venice

79

Work Package 8

• Dissemination and Exploitation

– Internal dissemination and exploitation of IoT-A results– Contribution of chapter 4 to IoT-A book "Enabling Things to Talk"

Travel In RTD a total amount of 9.282,41ewere needed for travel

2.5.1.9 CEA - Justification of Resources




329,760.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 329,760.00


Effort in WP(PM)

WP1 1.42WP3 5.50WP4 3.64WP5 20.84WP7 3.93WP8 2.41Total in WPs 37.74

WP1 Continuation of the IoT Threat Analysis for deliverable D1.5 with especially additionof a discussion section relative to Best Practices, description of logging, accounting & non-repudiation and mapping of the identified risks to IoT-A Design Choices

WP3

• Participation to deliverable D3.4 (future of collaborative security)

• Participation to deliverable D3.6 (security procedures with focus on cryptography en-ablement, intrusion detection systems, trust management systems, privacy preservingprocedures and chapter on collaborative security)

80

WP4

• Elaboration of a new system for integrating KEM component with other T4.4 compo-nents, especially AuthN

• Implementation of the new KEM component

WP5

• Development and realisation of a RFID noisy reader

• Integration of the RFID noisy reader to the CSE’s gateway

• Development and realisation of a relay attack on an RFID link and its countermeasure

WP7

• Integration of the resolution security components altogether in order to support thedemo planned at final review meeting

WP8

• Redaction of a journal article Y. Ben Saied & A. Olivereau, ”Lightweight collaborativekeying for the Internet of Things”, Elsevier Computer Networks Journal.

• Redaction of a chapter in the book ”RFID from systems to applications”: ”Implementa-tion of a countermeasure to relay attack on contactless HF systems”. Ed. INTECH

2.5.1.10 NEC



Personnel 201,119.00 0.00 0.00 17,589.00 218,708.00Other 12,332.00 0.00 0.00 2,119.00 14,451.00Subcontracting 0.00 0.00 9,900.00 0.00 9,900.00Direct costs 213,451.00 0.00 9,900.00 19,708.00 243,059.00Indirect costs 140,708.00 0.00 0.00 10,756.00 151,464.00Total costs 354,159.00 0.00 9,900.00 30,464.00 394,523.00Requested ECcontribution

177,079.00 0.00 9,900.00 30,464.00 217,443.00

81

2.5.1.10.2 Workpackage Distribution of Effort The following table illustrates the distri-bution of effort:Workpackage Distributionof Effort

Effort in WP(PM)



WP1 (2.89PM) People: Martin Bauer

• Focus of the Work: Contributions to core aspects of the architectural reference model

– domain model (updates plus new contribution on guidelines/reference manual, ad-dressed redmine comments), several discussions on different concepts, includingresources, virtual entities and associations

– information model (addressed redmine comments)

– functional model (focus on IoT Service and Virtual Entity Functional Groups, ex-planation of IoT Service and Virtual Entity abstraction levels, addressed redminecomments)

– functional view (focus on IoT Service and Virtual Entity Functional Groups, ad-dressed redmine comments)

– information view (updates, reference manual, addressed redmine comments)

– review of communication model

– architecture methodology

– benefits of using the IoT Architectural Reference Model

– update of use cases, interaction diagrams and interfaces for IoT Services andVirtual Entity functional groups

– selection of red thread IoT use case for D1.5 and integration of red thread examplefor domain model & information view

– IoT: lazy vs. eager systems

• Contributions to the respective sections in D1.4 (see above).

• Contributions to the respective sections in D1.5 (see above)

• Dissemination Contributions

– Domain Model Paper + Presentation Slides

82

– ARM Journal Paper contribution on Domain Model, review of paper

– IoT Book ”Enabling Things to Talk” (concept discussion, new chapter on ”IoT Ar-chitectural Reference Model as Enabler”, contributions to chapters on ”IoT Ref-erence Model”, ”IoT Reference Architecture”, ”IoT ARM Reference Manual” and”Interactions”, corrections of chapters)

• Co-chair of IERC AC1, presentation of IoT ARM to AC1, taking comments from AC1and entering them into redmine

• Discussion with FI-WARE on mapping of FI-WARE architecture to IoT ARM

• NEC as WP4 leader acted as contact point for WP4 related issues

• WP1 meeting participation + preparation of respective meetings

– WP1 meeting during plenary meeting in Berlin (October 2012)

– WP1 meeting in Guildford (November 2012)

– WP1/WP6 expert meeting for ARM validation on Dortmund (January 2013)

– WP1 meeting during plenary meeting in Antwerp (February 2013)

– WP1/WP6 expert meeting for ARM validation at Bosch in Waiblingen (March2013)

– WP1/WP6 expert workshop with IERC AC1 in Heidelberg (organized by NEC)(April 2013)

– WP1 meeting in Rome (April 2013)

– WP1 ”Brothers in ARM” presentation during IoT Week in Helsinki (June 2013)

• Presentation of IoT Reference Model, Benefits of ARM and IoT Book during reviewmeeting

• Participation in almost all-WP1 and topic-specific phone conferences related to thetopics mentioned above

WP2 (3.21 PM) People: Tobias Jacobs, Martin Bauer, ErnŽ Kovacs

• Focus of the work: T2.2, T2.4

– T2.2 A taxonomy of QoS-aware Service Composition

– T2.4 Complex Event Processing in IoT Architectures

• Contributions to deliverables

– D2.5

∗ Adaptive and fault tolerant systems∗ Study of several approaches to service orchestration

83

· From three different perspectives: SOC, IoT, Cloud∗ Identified research questions / problems and proposed solution:

· Key question: How to achieve a reliable orchestration from unreliable ser-vices?

· Idea: Leverage a robust data sharing layer to improve fault/tolerance andscalability by delegating functionality to the cloud

∗ Study of several approaches for automated service composition

• D2.6

– Location-based Event Processing in the Cloud

∗ Principles of Workload Distribution for Events and Rules∗ Specialized Workload Distribution for Location-based Processing Rules∗ Algorithms and Data Structures for Large-scale Location-based Event Pro-

cessing

– Relevance for IoT-A Work Package 4

• Other: Contributed to review preparation for final review in Rome

• WP2 Meeting Participation

– WP2 meeting during plenary meeting in Berlin, October 2012

– WP2 meeting during plenary meeting in Antwerp, February 2013

– WP2 meeting in Munich, April 2013

• Participation in almost all WP2-related phone conferences

WP4 (28.72 PM) People: Martin Bauer (WPL), Dennis Gessner (TL4.4), Tobias Jacobs,Jens-Matthias Bohli, Felix Gomez-Marmol, GinOs DUlera Tormo, ErnŽ Kovacs, SalvatoreLongo

• Work package leadership (Martin Bauer)

– Organization and planning of WP4 work and activities (meetings, phone confer-ences, meeting minutes, deliverables)

– Cross-WP relations with WP1 on ARM and WP7 on integration of WP4 compo-nents into use case demos

– Participation in TSC activities (meetings, phone conferences, technical decisions)

– Reporting of WP4 activities

– Representation of WP4 during the review meetings in Zurich (November 2012),in Berlin (March 2013) and in Rome (December 2013), presentation of technicalWP4 demo during review in Rome

– Analysis of review report and addressing of review recommendations

84

– Integration of VTT into WP4

– Participation in IERC AC2 (also see WP8)

∗ Participation in meetings∗ Contribution to AC2 deliverable∗ Contribution to AC2 white paper∗ Presentation of WP4 results to AC2 during AC2 meeting in Helsinki (June

2013)

• Focus of the NEC work:

– T4.1 Identification and Look-up of IoT Services

– Functionality and interfaces of IoT Service Resolution component (Martin Bauer)

– Geo-location-based discovery of IoT Services, using geographic index structures(Salvatore Longo)

– Prototype implementation for geo-location based discovery based on R-tree indexstructure, as basis for deliverable contributions (Salvatore Longo)

– Evaluation of prototype (Martin Bauer, Salvatore Longo)

– Integration of prototype in WP7 demo (Salvatore Longo)

– Integrated evaluation of prototype (Martin Bauer, Salvatore Longo)

– Creation of technical WP4 demo shown during review meeting in Rome (SalvatoreLongo, Dennis Gessner, Martin Bauer) - together with Task 4.4

• T4.2 Entity-based Discovery of IoT Services

– Functionality and interfaces of VE Resolution component (Martin Bauer)

– Geo-location-based discovery of Associations based on specification of VirtualEntities (Salvatore Longo)

– Implementation of interface, dispatcher and storage components (Salvatore Longo)

– Prototype implementation of virtual-entity and geo-based discovery of associa-tions / services (Salvatore Longo)

– Evaluation of prototype (Martin Bauer, Salvatore Longo)

– Integration of prototype in WP7 demo (Salvatore Longo)

– Integrated evaluation of prototype (Martin Bauer, Salvatore Longo)

• T4.3 Managing Dynamic Associations between IoT Services and Virtual Entities

– Functionality and interfaces of VE & IoT Service Monitoring component (MartinBauer)

– Further study on concepts for finding new associations based on geographic dis-tance and other aspects (Martin Bauer)

85

• T4.4 Privacy and Security in the Resolution Infrastructure (Dennis Gessner, Jens-Matthias Bohli, Felix Gomez-Marmol, Ginés Dólera Tormo)

– Modification and integration of designed Authorization component (AuthZ) (Den-nis Gessner, Ginés Dólera Tormo)

– Modification and integration of designed Trust and Reputation Architecture com-ponent (TRA) (Dennis Gessner, Felix Gomez-Marmol)

– Study and analysis on Cloud based Identity Management for IoT-A aware devices(Jens-Matthias Bohli)

– Functionality and interfaces of WP4 security components to the IoT ResolutionInfrastructure (Dennis Gessner)

– Creation of technical WP4 demo shown during review meeting in Rome (SalvatoreLongo, Dennis Gessner, Martin Bauer) - together with T4.1

– Integrated evaluation of WP4 prototype, including AuthZ and TRA componentsconnected to IoT-A Resolution infrastructure (Dennis Gessner, Salvatore Longo)

– Intensive testing and integration of all security components to technical WP4demo (Salvatore Longo, Dennis Gessner)

• Contributions to deliverables

– D4.4 Final Design and Implementation Report

∗ Reviewer: Suparna De (UniS), Martin Bauer (NEC)∗ Style Guide for D4.4 (Martin Bauer)∗ Table of Content (Martin Bauer)∗ Analysis of evaluation plans from partners (Martin Bauer)∗ D4.4 contributions:

· Executive Summary (Martin Bauer)· Introduction (Martin Bauer)· Resolution infrastructure overview (Martin Bauer)· High-level functional overview (Martin Bauer)· Architecture of implementation (Salvatore Longo)· Geographic locations approach (Martin Bauer, Salvatore Longo)· Peer-to-peer infrastructure DHT approach, Evaluation (Salvatore Longo)· Interface bindings, REST binding of the Resolution Infrastructure (Salva-

tore Longo)· Description and evaluation of security components (Dennis Gessner)· Authorization (AuthZ) (Dennis Gessner, GinOs DUlera Tormo)· Trust and Reputation Architecture (TRA) (Dennis Gessner, Felix Gomez-

Marmol)· Identity management (IM) (Dennis Gessner)

86

· Integrated evaluation (Salvatore Longo, Martin Bauer)· Summary and Conclusions (Martin Bauer, Salvatore Longo)

– IR4.4 – Detailed Design, Evaluation and Integration of Security Components

∗ IR4.4 contributions:· Executive Summary (Martin Bauer)· Overview of security infrastructure (Dennis Gessner)· Authorization (AuthZ) (Dennis Gessner, GinOs DUlera Tormo)· Trust and Reputation Architecture (TRA) (Dennis Gessner, Felix Gomez-

Marmol)· Identity management (IM) (Dennis Gessner)


– WP4 meeting during plenary meeting in Berlin (Martin Bauer, Dennis Gessner),October 2012

– WP4 integration meeting in Berlin (Martin Bauer, Dennis Gessner, Salvatore Longo),October 2012

– WP4/WP7 integration meeting in Zurich (Martin Bauer, Salvatore Longo), October2012

– WP4 meeting during plenary meeting in Antwerp (Martin Bauer, Salvatore Longo),in February 2013

– T4.4 Integration Meeting in Heidelberg (Hosted by NEC) (Martin Bauer, DennisGessner, Salvatore Longo), in July 2013

• Participation in and organization of WP4-related phone conferences

WP6 (0.17 PM) People: Martin Bauer

• Focus of the work:

– Requirements, checking and updating the fit criteria

– Technical validation and interaction with stakeholders and experts on workshopslisted below


– WP6 Stakeholder workshop #5 in Bled

– WP1/WP6 expert meeting for ARM validation on Dortmund (January 2013) ->reported in WP1

– WP1/WP6 expert meeting for ARM validation at Bosch in Waiblingen (March2013) -> reported in WP1

– WP1/WP6 expert workshop with IERC AC1 in Heidelberg (organized by NEC)(April 2013) -> reported in WP1

87

– WP6 Stakeholder workshop #6 in Helsinki

• Participation in some WP6 and T6.1 phone conferences

WP8 (2.71 PM) People: Martin Bauer, Stefan Gessler

• Focus of the work

– Dissemination and Exploitation: (T8.1, T8.3)∗ NEC contribution to exploitation plan (D8.14)∗ Internal dissemination and exploitation of IoT-A results∗ External Dissemination of IoT-A results:

· IERC AC2 - Presentation of IoT-A project with focus on WP4 results at IoTWeek in Helsinki (June 2013)

– Support for NEC oneM2M contribution based on IoT-A ideas (T8.4)– IERC Cluster Participation (T8.6)

∗ IERC AC1 Co-Chair (Martin Bauer): planning and meeting organization, in-teraction with FI-WARE (FI-PPP)

∗ IERC AC2 Participation (meetings, phone conferences, deliverable, white pa-per)

∗ IERC Newsletter contribution on IoT-A ARM∗ IERC Meetings

· IERC AC1 Meeting, Brussels (September 2012)· IERC AC1 Meeting, Zurich (November 2012)· IERC Meeting, General, AC1 & AC4 Delft (February 2013)· Participation at Concertation Meeting in Brussels (February 2013)· IERC representation at FI-WARE workshop during FIA, Dublin (May 2013)· IERC AC2 Meeting, Helsinki (June 2013)· IERC Meeting, Zurich (September 2013)· IERC Meeting during ICT 2013 in Vilnius (November 2013)

2.5.1.11 IBM



Personnel 179,948.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 179,948.68Other 2,379.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,379.56Subcontracting 0.00 0.00 3,409.92 0.00 3,409.92Direct costs 182,328.24 0.00 3,409.92 0.00 185,738.16Indirect costs 38,676.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 38,676.02Total costs 221,004.26 0.00 3,409.92 0.00 224,414.18Requested ECcontribution

110,502.00 0.00 3,409.00 0.00 113,911.00

88


Effort in WP(PM)

WP5 8.39WP7 2.77Total in WPs 11.16

2.5.1.11.3 Major Cost Items and Resources pending

2.5.1.11.4 Major Cost Items and Resources: Travels In this table the travels sustainedfor the project.EmployeeName

Date Trip des-tination

Reason Gross To-tal

KrampThorsten

Oct 2012 BerlinDE

GA Meeting e463.35

KrampThorsten

Mar 2013 BerlinDE

GA Meeting e498.54

OestreicherMarcus

June 2013 HelsinkiFI

iot-week e1417.67

TOTAL e2771.75

2.5.1.12 CATTID - Universita Sapienza

2.5.1.12.1 Cost and Contribution The following table illustrates the cost breakdown:

Cost Cate-gories


Personnel 142,487.77 0.00 13,355.66 0.00 155,843.43Other 3,915.06 0.00 459.56 0.00 4,374.62Subcontracting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Direct costs 146,402.83 0.00 13,815.22 0.00 60,218.05Indirect costs 87,841.00 0.00 8,289.00 0.00 96,130.00Total costs 234,243.83 0.00 22,104.22 0.00 256,348.05Requested ECcontribution

175,682.00 0.00 22,104.00 0.00 197,786.00

2.5.1.12.2 Workpackage Distribution of Effort The following table illustrates the distri-bution of effort:

89

Workpackage Distributionof Effort

Effort in WP(PM)



WP 1 CATTID/CSD’s activities in WP1 continued as per DoW with contributions to D1.4and D1.5. These contributions mainly regarded the fields in which it had more experience,specifically domain model and security.Specifically, for what concerns contribution to deliverables D1.4 and D1.5, CSD was respon-sible for the security chapters both at Reference Model and in the Reference Architecturelevel. The Trust and Security Model was re-designed from scratch and re-shaped. Morespecifically CSD contributed as follows:

• Included a detailed design of the Privacy model.

• Security Threats within large IoT systems were tackled, and possible countermeasureswere discussed in the framework of the proposed Trust, Security and Privacy compo-nents developed in the project.

• The Safety and Reliability system properties were introduced and detailed within theframework of large IoT systems and guidelines on how to achieve them were proposed.

CATTID/CSD attended the following WP1 meetings

• TSC meeting in Rome [29 April 2013] (Hosted by CATTID)



WP 3 Work package 3 has the difficult task to provide a seamless communication flowbetween the components of the Internet of Things domain. The task is very difficult andmany interesting discussions were fostered. Different solution options were investigated andin the frame of T3.1, CATTID’s work started with the definition of the State of the Art onCommunication Protocols (IR1.1) which was then integrated in D1.1.Task 3.5 supported the main design task (T3.3) in its effort to achieve O3.1 and CATTID leadthe task. This support revolved around the integration of security features available at differ-ent layers into a coherent protocol stack providing End-to-End confidentiality and integrity,while also granting other communication security features to the network control plane andto network infrastructure components. Currently, the effort of partners in T3.5 is aimed at

90

providing an analysis of the security features of the protocols candidate to implement the IDLayer (HIP and LISP) and of other protocols under evaluation (shim6 and mobileIP). Anotheraspect that was discussed and analysed in the frame of T3.5 was how to provide scalabilityfeatures to the IoT devices, which are very heterogeneous for what concerns the hardwarebasis and the PHY/MAC security features.CATTID reviewed D3.6 upon request.CATTID contributed extensively to the Guidelines for Design of IoT systems included in De-liverable D3.6 as follows:

• A detailed discussion on large infrastructureless IoT systems of the future includingwireless systems, mobile networks of individuals, delay tolerant networks, and theirrouting approaches was thoroughly described.

• CATTID introduced the nano-networks as one of the most prominent systems in theIoTs of the future and detailed their applicability within IoT frameworks, the nano-communication protocols, and the security requirements and solutions for these sys-tems.

• CATTID introduced and described the interaction among IoT systems of the future andremote clouds, together with possible solutions for scalability of communication andcomputation.

• CATTID introduced and described proxy re-encryption schemes, the application sce-narios they enable in IoT systems and the role they will play in the future of IoT security.

CATTID attended the following WP3 meetings:




WP 4 CATTID’s involvement in T4.4 was mainly focused on the overall architecture of thesecurity-related functional components and their integration in the overall IoT-A architecture,especially as part of the Security Officer’s duty. Specifically:

• Integration with WP1 architecture: separation of functionalities, and specification ofFunctional Components’ features

• Re-design of the Authentication mechanisms and implementation of the AuthN com-ponent enhancing its functionality with that of a Certificate Authority in the system

• Re-design of the communication among users, the AuthN component, and the RI soto consider the new functionalities of the AuthN component and its role as a CA in thesystem

• Integration of AuthN, AuthZ and RI and testing and evaluation of the AuthN componentin two separate scenarios: Authentication of constrained and unconstrained devices.

91

These results were included in D4.4 and in a later document IR.4.4 which describes theinteraction among components RI, AuthN, AuthZ and constrained and unconstrained devicesin view of the new functionalities of AuthN.CATTID participated in the following WP4 meetings:




WP 7 CATTID WP7 effort in Year 3 was mainly geared towards the design and developmentof IoT-A based scenes in the eHealth use case. Application and functional requirements of allUse Cases’ scenes have been mapped on the Domain and Functional Model. This processalso involved WP1 topics CATTID had worked on and was familiar with so it supported otherpartners in the process while providing useful feedback to WP1. This effort converged inD7.2.The development of the two scenes CATTID is responsible of was finished and a prototypeof one of the two scenes was demonstrated Helsinki during the IoT week in June 2013. Thisprototype was enhanced, with respect to what originally described, with the newly imple-mented AuthN component, by thus being the unique prototype within the project includingalso security mechanisms. It was also one of the 4 usecases presented during the FinalReview Project Meeting in Rome in December 2013.




Travel

• Alessandro Mei, Review Meeting, 17-18 Mar 2013, Berlin, DE, e459.56.

• Daniele Mattiacci and Julinda Stefa, IOTA Week, 16-20 Jun 2013, Helsinki, FI,e2,549.94.

• Daniele Mattiacci and Sokol Kosta, ACM Sensys, 11-14 Nov 2013, Rome, IT, e915.00(only registration to the conference to present a IoT-A Demo).

• Julinda Stefa, Rehearsal of final Review Meeting, 24-25 Nov, Berlin, DE, e450.12.

References

• D. Mattiacci, S. Kosta, A. Mei, and J. Stefa. Supporting Interoperability of Things inIoT Systems. In ACM SENSYS ’13: Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference onEmbedded Networked Sensor Systems, demo session, Rome, 2013.

92

• M. Bauer, N. Bui, J. De Loof, C. Magerkurth, A. NettstrŁter, J. Stefa, J. W Walewski,IoT Reference Model, chapter of the book "Enabling Things to Talk" , Springer BerlinHeidelberg, 2013.

• M. Bauer, M. Boussard, N. Bui, J. De Loof, C. Magerkurth, S. Meissner, A. NettstrŁter,J. Stefa, M. Thoma, J. W Walewski, IoT Reference Architecture, chapter of the book"Enabling Things to Talk", Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.

• G. Baldini et al., IERC Activity Chain 05- IoT Privacy, Security and Governance, chapterof the book "Internet of Things: Converging Technologies for Smart Environments andIntegrated Ecosystems", River Publishers 2013.

2.5.1.13 CFR



Personnel 117,943.00 0.00 0.00 15,740.00 133,683.00Other 11,718.00 0.00 0.00 6,466.00 18,184.00Subcontracting 0.00 0.00 997.00 0.00 997.00Direct costs 129,661.00 0.00 997.00 22,206.00 152,864.00Indirect costs 77,796.00 0.00 0.00 13,323.00 91,119.00Total costs 207,457.00 0.00 997.00 35,529.00 243,983.00Requested ECcontribution

155,592.00 0.00 997.00 35,529.00 192,118.00


Effort in WP(PM)


2.5.1.13.3 Major Cost Items and Resources Personnel Cost for CFR ise133683, whichis divided into:

• RTD e117943

• OTHER: e15740

Following persons at CFR were actively involved: Nicola Bressan, Nicola Bui, Angelo P.Castellani, Moreno Dissegna, Michele Rossi, Lorenzo Vangelista, Luca Vidale, Michele Zorzi. For UniPD: Claudio Narduzzi and Andrea Zanella

93

WP1: 5,30

WP3: 8,64 + 5.8 UNIPD

WP5: 3,21

WP7: 3,56

WP8: 1,22

TOT 21,93 CFR + 5,8 UNIPD =27,73 MM

2.5.1.13.4 Effort justification:

WP1

1. CFR has been leading the following WP1 task forces: terminology, communicationmodel and deployment and operation.

2. Participation in WP1 activities: CFR has been active in all tasks of the WP, in particularcontributing to communication and deployment aspects.

3. Contribution to the following deliverables:

(a) D1.4: Communication model, deployment and operation view, terminology

(b) D1.5: Communication model, deployment and operation view, terminology, bestpractices, guidelines

4. Contribution to the IoT-A book:

(a) IoT Reference Model

(b) The IoT Reference Manual

(c) IoT Reference Architecture

5. Participation to the IoT Week in Helsinki: illustrating the ARM in particular the commu-nication model.

6. Participation to the IoT-ARM workshop at Bosch

7. Organized events: CFR has organized the International Workshop IoTech 2012 (Co-Located with IEEE MASS 2012, held in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA on the 11th of Octo-ber 2012), see: http://iotech-ws.com.

94

Highlight Clearly Significant Results:

1. Publications: the activities that have been described above have led to the publicationof the following scientific papers.

(a) M Bauer, N Bui, J De Loof, C Magerkurth, A NettstrŁter, J Stefa, JW Walewski,”IoT Reference Model” in Enabling Things to Talk, 113-162, 2013

(b) M Bauer, N Bui, C Jardak, A NettstrŁter, ”The IoT ARM Reference Manual” inEnabling Things to Talk, 213-236, 2013

(c) M Bauer, M Boussard, N Bui, J De Loof, C Magerkurth, S Meissner et al. ”IoTReference Architecture” in Enabling Things to Talk, 163-211, 2013

(d) R. Bonetto, N. Bui, V. Lakkundi, A. Olivereau, A. Serbanati and M. Rossi, SecureCommunication for Smart IoT Objects: Protocol Stacks, Use Cases and PracticalExamples, IEEE IoT-SoS Workshop, San Francisco, CA, US, 2012.

(e) A. P. Castellani, T. Fossati, S. Loreto, HTTP-CoAP Cross Protocol Proxy: AnImplementation Viewpoint, IEEE IoTech 2012, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2012.

(f) M. Danieletto, N. Bui and M. Zorzi, Improving Internet of Things Communicationsthrough Compression and Classification, IEEE PerSens 2012, Lugano, Switzer-land, 2012.

(g) A. P. Castellani, Moreno Dissegna, Nicola Bui and Michele Zorzi, WebIoT: A WebApplication Framework for the Internet of Things, IoT-ET workshop of IEEE WCNC2012, Paris, France.

(h) R. Bonetto, N. Bui, M. Rossi, M. Zorzi, McMAC: a power efficient, short pream-ble Multi-Channel Medium Access Control protocol for wireless sensor networks,ACM WNS3 workshop of ACM SIMUTools 2012, Sirmione, Italy.

(i) A. P. Castellani , G. Ministeri , M. Rotoloni , L. Vangelista and M. Zorzi, Interoper-able and globally interconnected Smart Grid using IPv6 and 6LoWPAN, SaCoNetworkshop of IEEE ICC 2012, Ottawa, Canada, 2012.

(j) N. Bui, N. Bressan, M. Zorzi, Interconnection of Body Area Networks to a Commu-nications Infrastructure: an Architectural Study, European Wirelss 2012, Poznañ,Poland, 2012.

(k) N. Bui, A. P. Castellani, P. Casari, M. Zorzi, The Internet of Energy: A Web-enabled Smart Grid system 2012, IEEE Network, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 39-45.

(l) N. Bui, A. P. Castellani, P. Casari, M. Rossi, L. Vangelista, M. Zorzi, Implementa-tion of and Performance Evaluation of Wireless Sensor Networks for Smart Grid,Book chapter in E. Hossain, Z. Han, and H. V. Poor, Smart Grid Communicationsand Networking, (edited volume), Cambridge University Press, IBSN-13: 978-1107014138.

(m) Nicola Bui, Michele Rossi and Michele Zorzi, Networking Technologies for SmartGrid. Book chapter in: IEEE Vision for Smart Grid Communications: 2030 andBeyond, Ed. Sanjay Goel, Stephen F. Bushand Dave Bakken. IEEE Communica-tions Society 2013. IEEE 3 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016-5997 USA.

95

(n) G. Quer, R. Masiero, Michele Rossi, M. Zorzi, Sensing, Compression, and Recov-ery for WSNs: Sparse Signal Modeling and Monitoring Framework, IEEE Trans-actions on Wireless Communications, vol. 11, no. 10, pp: 3447-3461, October2012.

(o) A. P. Castellani, M. Rossi, M. Zorzi, Back Pressure Congestion Control for CoAP/-6LoWPAN Networks, Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks, Special Issue ”From M2M Com-munication to the Internet of Things”, Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks, Published onlineon March 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc. 2013.02.007

No major deviations from the original work have been observed.Following persons were actively involved in WP1: Nicola Bui, Michele Rossi, Lorenzo Van-gelista, Michele Zorzi

WP3

1. CFR has been WP3 deputy leader and task leader for task T3.3 ”IoT Protocol SuiteDevelopment”: this has involved the continuous monitoring and orchestration of activ-ities, Phone meetings, physical meetings, often acting on behalf of the WP leader forwhat concerns the technical management of the WP.

2. Participation in WP3 activities: namely T3.2: ”M2M analysis”, T3.3 ”IoT Protocol SuiteDevelopment”, T3.4: ”Protocol Suitability Analysis for IoT”.

3. Editor and contributing partner (together with its Third Party, UniP) for deliverable D3.6”IoT Protocol Suite Definition”: CFR has set up the Table of Content of this deliverableand has contributed to it as described next:

(a) CFR has largely contributed to Section 3: ”Networking Scenarios”.

(b) CFR and UniP have largely contributed to Section 4: ”IoT Protocol Architecture”,in particular taking care of the networking aspects of the architectural design.

(c) CFR has contributed in full to section 5: ”Security Association for Unicast Commu-nications”: describing an implementation-oriented approach to implement unicastsecurity primitives (authentication and encryption) in IoTs.

(d) CFR has contributed in full to Section 7: ”Back Pressure Congestion Control forIoT”: describing practical distributed algorithms to implement congestion controlin IoTs in a distributed and lightweight manner. These algorithms are compatiblewith current standardization efforts from IETF.

4. Contributing partner and reviewer for deliverable D3.5 ”M2M API Definition”: CFR hascontributed in full to section 5, ”Inter-Protocol Bridging”, of this deliverable. Section 5describes the work performed on HTTP-to-CoAP mapping, which is also addressed,in part, by the IETF Draft draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-02, which is further discussedbelow.

96

5. Contributing partner of deliverable D3.4 ”Guidelines for Communication Protocol Devel-opment for IoT”. In this deliverable, CFR and UniP have contributed in full to Sections3.1 and 3.2 regarding the evolution of Internet protocols and link layer technologies forIoTs.

6. Organized events: CFR has organized the International Workshop IoTech 2012 (Co-Located with IEEE MASS 2012, held in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA on the 11th of Octo-ber 2012), see: http://iotech-ws.com.

7. Standardization Activity: the CFR team has contributed to the IETF Draft: draft-core-http-mapping-06 (expired on April 25 2013): ”Best Practices for HTTP-CoAP Map-ping Implementation - guidelines for HTTP/CoAP mapping”. This document has beenreplaced by the new IETF Draft: draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-02 (October 12, 2013,expires April 15 2014): ”Guidelines for HTTP-CoAP Mapping Implementations”. Thelatter will be adopted as a Working Group (WG) Document from January 2014.

Clearly Significant Results:

1. Standardization: writeup of draft-ietf-core-http-mapping-02, which took three years,and involved the attendance of several IETF meetings and the interaction with compa-nies internationally and outside the IOTA project.


(a) R. Bonetto, N. Bui, V. Lakkundi, A. Olivereau, A. Serbanati and M. Rossi, SecureCommunication for Smart IoT Objects: Protocol Stacks, Use Cases and PracticalExamples, IEEE IoT-SoS Workshop, San Francisco, CA, US, 2012.

(b) A. P. Castellani, T. Fossati, S. Loreto, HTTP-CoAP Cross Protocol Proxy: AnImplementation Viewpoint, IEEE IoTech 2012, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2012.

(c) M. Danieletto, N. Bui and M. Zorzi, Improving Internet of Things Communicationsthrough Compression and Classification, IEEE PerSens 2012, Lugano, Switzer-land, 2012.

(d) A. P. Castellani, Moreno Dissegna, Nicola Bui and Michele Zorzi, WebIoT: A WebApplication Framework for the Internet of Things, IoT-ET workshop of IEEE WCNC2012, Paris, France.

(e) R. Bonetto, N. Bui, M. Rossi, M. Zorzi, McMAC: a power efficient, short pream-ble Multi-Channel Medium Access Control protocol for wireless sensor networks,ACM WNS3 workshop of ACM SIMUTools 2012, Sirmione, Italy.

(f) A. P. Castellani , G. Ministeri , M. Rotoloni , L. Vangelista and M. Zorzi, Interoper-able and globally interconnected Smart Grid using IPv6 and 6LoWPAN, SaCoNetworkshop of IEEE ICC 2012, Ottawa, Canada, 2012.

(g) N. Bui, N. Bressan, M. Zorzi, Interconnection of Body Area Networks to a Commu-nications Infrastructure: an Architectural Study, European Wirelss 2012, Pozna?,Poland, 2012.

97

(h) N. Bui, A. P. Castellani, P. Casari, M. Zorzi, The Internet of Energy: A Web-enabled Smart Grid system 2012, IEEE Network, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 39-45.

(i) N. Bui, A. P. Castellani, P. Casari, M. Rossi, L. Vangelista, M. Zorzi, Implementa-tion of and Performance Evaluation of Wireless Sensor Networks for Smart Grid,Book chapter in E. Hossain, Z. Han, and H. V. Poor, Smart Grid Communicationsand Networking, (edited volume), Cambridge University Press, IBSN-13: 978-1107014138.

(j) Nicola Bui, Michele Rossi and Michele Zorzi, Networking Technologies for SmartGrid. Book chapter in: IEEE Vision for Smart Grid Communications: 2030 andBeyond, Ed. Sanjay Goel, Stephen F. Bushand Dave Bakken. IEEE Communica-tions Society 2013. IEEE 3 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016-5997 USA.

(k) G. Quer, R. Masiero, Michele Rossi, M. Zorzi, Sensing, Compression, and Recov-ery for WSNs: Sparse Signal Modeling and Monitoring Framework, IEEE Trans-actions on Wireless Communications, vol. 11, no. 10, pp: 3447-3461, October2012.

(l) A. P. Castellani, M. Rossi, M. Zorzi, Back Pressure Congestion Control for CoAP/-6LoWPAN Networks, Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks, Special Issue ”From M2M Com-munication to the Internet of Things”, Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks, Published onlineon March 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc. 2013.02.007

(m) D. Altolini, V. Lakkundi, N. Bui, C. Tapparello and M. Rossi, Low Power Link LayerSecurity for IoT: Implementation and Performance Analysis, IEEE IWCMC, June1-5, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy, 2013.

No major deviations from the original work have been observed.Following persons were actively involved in WP3: Nicola Bressan, Michele Rossi, LorenzoVangelista, Luca Vidale, Michele Zorzi (CFR); Claudio Narduzzi, Andrea Zanella (UniP).DEI – UNIPD Personnel direct costs: Salaries of 2 researcher employed of the University ofPadova (Claudio Narduzzi, Andrea Zanella) for a total of 5,8 person monthCompared to the original budget, estimated based on an envisioned effort of 20 PMs and theaverage monthly cost of CFR’s personnel (6000 Euros/mo), the total costs of UniP duringthe project are a little higher due to the higher monthly costs of the University personnelemployed

WP5 Summary of activities:The technical activity @ CFR within WP5 has been carried out along two main axes: 1) theimplementation of a CoAP micro-server for the MoteRunner OS (to be used in the sensornodes), 2) the implementation of security crypto-suites according to software- and hardware-based approaches for IEEE 802.15.4 radios, along with their performance test. These activ-ities have been described in several deliverables, as we detail below.

1. Contributing partner for deliverable D5.4 ”Run-time Environment for IoT WSN Devices:Specification” (this deliverable has been amended in 2013 by IBM and CFR). CFR hascontributed with a description of its CoAP implementation for MoteRunner.

98

2. Contributing partner for deliverable D5.5 ”Run-time Environment for IoT WSN Devices:Design and Implementation” (this deliverable has been amended in 2013 by IBM andCFR). CFR has contributed with a chapter describing its implementation of the CoAPextension for MoteRunner, including the definition of the state machine of the CoAPprotocol, its capabilities, initialization and usage within the MoteRunner OS.

3. Contributing partner of deliverable D5.1 ”Energy Aware IoT Architecture”: CFR hascontributed to this deliverable with chapter describing the CFR implementation of linklayer security suites for IEEE 802.15.4, including authentication and encryption mod-ules. These have been realized through a fully software-based implementation andalso exploiting the hardware implementation of some cyphers. Extensive tests andmeasurements have been carried out to assess the performance of software-basedand hardware-based security suites, their energy consumption and cost for the WSN(in particular, referring to the impact of security suites in terms of lifetime reduction forthe WSN).


1. Implementation: CFR has implemented a CoAP micro-server for the MoteRunner OS(to be used in the sensor nodes). The finite state machine of the implemented CoAPprotocol has been designed taking advantage of the CFR’s experience gained withinthe IETF community (see also the work carried out within WP3).

2. Publications: the technical activities that have been described above have led to thepublication of the following scientific paper:

(a) A. P. Castellani, T. Fossati, S. Loreto, HTTP-CoAP Cross Protocol Proxy: AnImplementation Viewpoint, IEEE IoTech 2012, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2012.

(b) A. P. Castellani, Moreno Dissegna, Nicola Bui and Michele Zorzi, WebIoT: A WebApplication Framework for the Internet of Things, IoT-ET workshop of IEEE WCNC2012, Paris, France.

(c) N. Bui, A. P. Castellani, P. Casari, M. Rossi, L. Vangelista, M. Zorzi, Implementa-tion of and Performance Evaluation of Wireless Sensor Networks for Smart Grid,Book chapter in E. Hossain, Z. Han, and H. V. Poor, Smart Grid Communicationsand Networking, (edited volume), Cambridge University Press, IBSN-13: 978-1107014138.

(d) A. P. Castellani, M. Rossi, M. Zorzi, Back Pressure Congestion Control for CoAP/6LoWPANNetworks, Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks, Special Issue ”From M2M Communicationto the Internet of Things”, Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks, Published online on March2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc. 2013.02.007

No major deviations from the original work have been observed.Following persons were actively involved in WP5: Angelo P. Castellani, Moreno Dissegna,Lorenzo Vangelista, Michele Zorzi

99

WP7 Summary of activities:

1. CFR has been leading task 7.3 for WP7: in particular CFR helped in coordinatingthe evaluation activities of the task and the coordination of the demo related activities(health use case).

2. Participation in WP7 activities: CFR mainly contributed to the health use case part ofthe work package, providing 2 scenes for the demonstrator and playing a key role inthe coordination among the different partners.

3. Contribution to the following deliverables:

(a) IR7.3: update of the CFR’s scene description

(b) IR7.4: Updated diagrams (domain model, information model), list of used func-tional components

(c) D7.5: all contribution related to CFR’s scenes and the coordination for the usageof WP1 design choices in WP7

4. Participation to the IoT Week in Helsinki: showcasing CFR’s demonstrator.



(a) M Bauer, N Bui, J De Loof, C Magerkurth, A NettstrŁter, J Stefa, JW Walewski,”IoT Reference Model” in Enabling Things to Talk, 113-162, 2013

(b) M Bauer, N Bui, C Jardak, A NettstrŁter, ”The IoT ARM Reference Manual” inEnabling Things to Talk, 213-236, 2013

(c) M Bauer, M Boussard, N Bui, J De Loof, C Magerkurth, S Meissner et al. ”IoTReference Architecture” in Enabling Things to Talk, 163-211, 2013

(d) R. Bonetto, N. Bui, V. Lakkundi, A. Olivereau, A. Serbanati and M. Rossi, SecureCommunication for Smart IoT Objects: Protocol Stacks, Use Cases and PracticalExamples, IEEE IoT-SoS Workshop, San Francisco, CA, US, 2012.

(e) A. P. Castellani, T. Fossati, S. Loreto, HTTP-CoAP Cross Protocol Proxy: AnImplementation Viewpoint, IEEE IoTech 2012, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2012.

(f) M. Danieletto, N. Bui and M. Zorzi, Improving Internet of Things Communicationsthrough Compression and Classification, IEEE PerSens 2012, Lugano, Switzer-land, 2012.

(g) A. P. Castellani, Moreno Dissegna, Nicola Bui and Michele Zorzi, WebIoT: A WebApplication Framework for the Internet of Things, IoT-ET workshop of IEEE WCNC2012, Paris, France.

100

(h) R. Bonetto, N. Bui, M. Rossi, M. Zorzi, McMAC: a power efficient, short pream-ble Multi-Channel Medium Access Control protocol for wireless sensor networks,ACM WNS3 workshop of ACM SIMUTools 2012, Sirmione, Italy.

(i) A. P. Castellani , G. Ministeri , M. Rotoloni , L. Vangelista and M. Zorzi, Interoper-able and globally interconnected Smart Grid using IPv6 and 6LoWPAN, SaCoNetworkshop of IEEE ICC 2012, Ottawa, Canada, 2012.

(j) N. Bui, N. Bressan, M. Zorzi, Interconnection of Body Area Networks to a Commu-nications Infrastructure: an Architectural Study, European Wirelss 2012, Pozna?,Poland, 2012.

(k) N. Bui, A. P. Castellani, P. Casari, M. Zorzi, The Internet of Energy: A Web-enabled Smart Grid system 2012, IEEE Network, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 39-45.

(l) N. Bui, A. P. Castellani, P. Casari, M. Rossi, L. Vangelista, M. Zorzi, Implementa-tion of and Performance Evaluation of Wireless Sensor Networks for Smart Grid,Book chapter in E. Hossain, Z. Han, and H. V. Poor, Smart Grid Communicationsand Networking, (edited volume), Cambridge University Press, IBSN-13: 978-1107014138.

(m) Nicola Bui, Michele Rossi and Michele Zorzi, Networking Technologies for SmartGrid. Book chapter in: IEEE Vision for Smart Grid Communications: 2030 andBeyond, Ed. Sanjay Goel, Stephen F. Bushand Dave Bakken. IEEE Communica-tions Society 2013. IEEE 3 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016-5997 USA.

(n) G. Quer, R. Masiero, Michele Rossi, M. Zorzi, Sensing, Compression, and Recov-ery for WSNs: Sparse Signal Modeling and Monitoring Framework, IEEE Trans-actions on Wireless Communications, vol. 11, no. 10, pp: 3447-3461, October2012.

(o) A. P. Castellani, M. Rossi, M. Zorzi, Back Pressure Congestion Control for CoAP/-6LoWPAN Networks, Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks, Special Issue ”From M2M Com-munication to the Internet of Things”, Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks, Published onlineon March 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc. 2013.02.007

No major deviations from the original work have been observed.Following persons were actively involved in WP7: Nicola Bressan, Nicola Bui, Angelo P.Castellani, Moreno Dissegna, Luca Vidale, Michele Zorzi

WP8 Personnel Costs (e15740) reported under activity category .OTHER.relate to activities in the area of dissemination in the context of WP8:

1. Attending/participating to conferences/meetings (listed below).

2. Preparation of presentations/papers on IoT-A.

3. Michele Zorzi personally disseminated IoT-A ideas and results in several occasions,and notably: (i) during a one-week visit to the Institute of INFOCOMM Research in Sin-gapore, where he was invited to meet the researchers of the ”Sense&Sense-abilities”

101

project and to socialize ideas coming from EU initiatives, and in particular IoT-A; (ii)during a one-day trip to Aachen to visit Prof. Petri Mahonen’s group, to discuss ideasrelated to wireless sensor networks and Internet of Things and their evolution, report-ing recent results from IoT-A.

While there is no departure compared to the originally envisioned effort (3 PMs), the costis significantly higher than in the original budget (18000 Euros). This is due to the fact thatin the original budget calculation, we used the average PM cost of 6000 Euros to map the3 PMs into costs. However, the activities carried out in WP8 required a more intensiveparticipation of Michele Zorzi, whose monthly cost is significantly higher than the average.In addition, some dissemination activities in Y3 required some travel (as per bullet 3 above),whose costs have been also included in WP8.Following persons were actively involved in WP8: Michele Zorzi and Angelo Paolo Castellani(CFR) .

2.5.1.13.5 Other Cost justification

TRAVELS e16211 of which e9746 RTD and e6466 OTHERRTD

• October 9-11, 2012 IoTA General Assembly Berlin

• December 05-06, 2012 IIES Workshop, Riva del Garda

• November 18-19, 2012 IoTA Review Meeting Year 2, Regensdorf

• November, 14-15, 2012 WP1 Meeting Guildford

• February 03-06, 2013 IoTA General Assembly Anversa

• March 12-13, 2013 Expert Workshop near Bosch, Waiblingen

• April 29-30, 2013 WP1 Meeting, Rome

• June 9-14, 2013 Participation to ICC 2013 (Budapest) and technical meetings on In-ternet of Things

• November 24-25, 2013 Preparatory meeting for the Final Review, Berlin

• December 05-06, 2013 Final Review Meeting IoTA, Rome

OTHER

• October 09-13, 2012 IEEE MASS 2012 Las Vegas

• January 19-26, 2013 Visit to the Institute of INFOCOMM Research, Singapore

• April 12, 2013 visit Prof. Petri Mahonen’s group, to discuss ideas related to wirelesssensor networks and Internet of Things and their evolution, reporting recent resultsfrom IoT-A, Aachen

102

EQUIPMENT e803.90 (RTD)PCs for simulation and testing (depreciation amount)

OTHER DIRECT COSTS e1972,73 (RTD) for

• Keynote speaker (IoTech Conference 2012, October 10-12, 2012)

• Publication costs IEEE "Sensing, Compression, and Recovery for WSNs: Sparse Sig-nal Modeling and Monitoring Framework"

Management We have reported e966,65 related to the costs for the CFS procedure onthe first two years project. In the budget the amount has been allocated on the ”Other Costs”category, even if the auditor’s fee is properly a subcontract; this is the reason why we haveindicated such cost in the right box.

2.5.1.14 CSE




175,526.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 175,526.00


Effort in WP(PM)

WP3 12.60WP5 5.17WP7 3.00WP8 3.45Total in WPs 24.22

2.5.1.14.3 Major Cost Items and Resources: Travels In this table the travels sustainedfor the project.

103

EmployeeName

Date Trip des-tination

Reason Gross To-tal

K. Kout-sopoulos

19-21 Nov2012

ZurichCH

2nd Review Meeting e762.76

K. Kout-sopoulos

1-2 Oct2012

PadovaIT

WP3 Meeting e758.58

K. Kout-sopoulos

8-11 Oct2012

BerlinDE

Plenary Meeting e761.78

K. Kout-sopoulos

5-6 Dec2013

Rome IT Final Review Meeting e488.63

TOTAL e2771.75

2.5.1.14.4 Major Cost Items and Resources: Consumable Costs In this table the Con-sumable costsConsumable CostGW Components Purchasing e4381.62Transportation costs to partners e642.78GW Assembly + PCB fabrication costs e2818.06Total Consumable Costs e7842.46

2.5.1.15 UniWue



Personnel 61,006.70 0.00 0.00 4,269.14 65,275.84Other 3,475.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,475.26Subcontracting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Direct costs 64,481.96 0.00 0.00 4,269.14 68,751.10Indirect costs 47,394.76 0.00 0.00 3,316.60 50,711.36Total costs 111,876.72 0.00 0.00 7,585.74 119,462.46Requested ECcontribution

83,907.00 0.00 0.00 7,585.00 91,492.00


Effort in WP(PM)

WP1 2.00WP6 7.46WP7 1.50WP8 2.35Total in WPs 13.31

104


General:

• Contributions to documents:

– Enabling Things to Talk (Springer): Business case contribution

– Paper submitted to IEEE ICC 2014 conference, Paper title: Is a RFID SurgicalTowel Detection System Based on Latest Future Internet Technology Worth ItsInvestment? - A Business Case Study

The above publication was submitted to IEEE ICC 2014 (Workshop on Modular MedicalArchitectures). However, due to the low number of submitted papers the workshop hasbeen cancelled so that the paper will be submitted to another conference.

• Meeting participation:

– In the function as project partner we participated at the 2nd year review (Regens-dorf, November 20th-21st , 2012)

– In the function as project partner we participated at the interim review (Berlin,March 18th, 2013)

– We participated in the GA and F2F WP6 and Cross WP1/6/7 meeting in

∗ Berlin, October 10th – 11th, 2012∗ Antwerp, February 5th – 6th, 2013∗ We participated in the IoT week (Helsinki, June 16th-20th, 2013) e∗ We participated in the final review meeting (Rome, December 5th-6th, 2013)

WP1: Personnel: Alexander Salinas Segura

• We contributed to the work on Design choices

• We participated in almost telephone conferences regarding the work on Design choices.

Contributions to deliverables/documents:

• IR1.5: Contribution to Design Choices

• D1.5: Contribution to Design Choices

105

WP6 Personnel: Alexander Salinas Segura, Frédéric Thiesse

• Task leader of T6.2

• We participated in almost all weekly WP6 telephone conferences.

Contributions to deliverables/documents:

• IR6.2:

– Editorship

– Contribution to Business and Socio-economic validation

• D6.3:

– Contribution to Requirements engineering process

– Review of the document

• D6.4:

– Editorship

– Contribution to Business and Socio-economic validation

Meeting participation:

• We participated in the first PIA evaluation workshop (Berlin, March 19th, 2013)

• We participated in the MUNICH collaboration meeting (Munich, January 29th, 2013)

WP7: Personnel: Alexander Salinas SeguraContributions to deliverables/documents:

• D7.4: Contribution to the Business evaluation

WP8: Personnel: Alexander Salinas Segura, Frédéric ThiesseContributions to deliverables/documents:

• D8.13:

– Contribution to the partner section and the socio-economic relevance


• D8.14:

– Contribution to the partner section


106

In the last report period, we were involved in WP1, WP6, WP7 and WP8 besides generalduties. Our focus was on WP6 for which we were task leader of T6.2 and conducted acomprehensive business case.In WP1 our work encompassed the contribution to the design choices. Within the designchoices we were responsible for the trust, security and privacy (TSP) perspective. Thiscontribution was part of IR1.5 and D1.5.As already mention, we were heavily involved in WP6. Beginning with T6.1, we contributedto the requirements engineering process in D6.3 and reviewed the document. In T6.2 weconducted a business case in collaboration with the MUNICH project. For this reason weshifted resources from WP4 to WP6 since the work on the business case took quite someeffort and more than expected. The result was integrated in D6.4 for which UniWue had theeditorship and mainly contributed to the business and socio-economic validation part.In WP7 we were responsible for the business evaluation of the retail use case and collabo-rated for general parts of the evaluation with HSG. The result was part of D7.4.Our contributions to D8.13 and D8.14 in WP8 consisted of the partner involvement in bothdocuments. Furthermore we contributed for D8.13 the section on socio-economic relevance.Both deliverables were reviewed by UniWue.In the course of the last project period we realized our lack of resources in certain workpackages. Thus, we decided to shift our WP4 resources to the other relevant work packagesso that we were able to contribute in a reasonable manner. This was in accordance with thework package leader of WP4 and the project coordinator.

2.5.1.16 ALBLF




36,398.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36,398.00


Effort in WP(PM)

WP1 2.17WP4 3.46WP6 0.80Total in WPs 6.43

107


Physical meetings

• GA Oct 2012=> 2 days (M. Boussard, WP1 & WP6)

• Annual Review Meeting => Participation Cancelled (M. Boussard)

• GA Feb 2013 => 2 days (M. Boussard, WP1 & WP6) + 1 day (B. Christophe, WP4)

• WP1 Meeting Apr 2013 => 2 days (M. Boussard)

• Final review meeting, Dec 2013 (M. Boussard)

Phone Calls:

• 30+ WP1 PhC, incl. dedicated D1.4, D1.5, Best Practices and Functional Decomposi-tion PhC (M. Boussard)

• 3 WP4 PhC (B. Christophe)

• 3 PhC between ALBLF and UniS for semantic sections of D4.4, joint paper and inte-gration (B. Christophe)

• 22 for WP6, including T6.1, requirement reviews, D6.3 calls (M. Boussard)

Deliverables and reports:

• D1.4 => 12 days (M. Boussard)

• D1.5 => 8.5 days

• D4.4 => 7 days (B. Christophe)

• D6.3 => 5 days (M. Boussard)

Activities:

• WP1 Activities (M. Boussard)

– D1.4 contribution including phone conferences, contributions to management func-tional decomposition (including annex C), annex B

– D1.5 contributions including best practices sections (unified requirements usageand interactions sections) and updates to previously handled sections in D1.4

– IEEE IoT journal contribution (2 days)

• WP4 Activities (B. Christophe)

– Development, integration and evaluation of semantic solution with UniS (B. Christophe,25 days)

108

– Joint publication with UniS (B. Christophe, 12 days)

– D4.4 contributions based on joint paper with UniS (B. Christophe)

– contribution to WP4 integration workplan (2 days)

• WP6 Activities (M. Boussard):

– Y2 Review Meeting preparation => 0.5 day

– T6.1 management activities

– IR6.2 Review => 1 day

– Unified requirements updates, incl web publication (M. Boussard, WP1/WP6) =>10 days

– D6.3 contributions

• Updates dissemination/exploitation plan (D8.14, M. Boussard) => 0.5 days

2.5.1.17 UniP



Personnel 50,670.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,670.77Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Subcontracting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Direct costs 50,670.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,670.77Indirect costs 30,402.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,402.00Total costs 81,072.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 81,072.77Requested ECcontribution

60,804.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60,804.00


Effort in WP(PM)

WP3 5.80Total in WPs 5.80

2.5.1.17.3 Major Cost Items and Resources In WP3, UniP contributed to the analysisof the future evolution of communications paradigms and the Internet protocols (Sections 2and 3 of Deliverable D3.4), as well as to the in-field testing of some of the protocol solutionsconsidered in WP3, using the building-scale Wireless Sensor Network testbed available onUniP’s premises (as part of CFR/UniP’s role in T3.4). The personnel costs are referred tothe salaries of one Full Professor (5 PM) and one Assistant Professor (0.8 PM).

109

2.5.1.18 VTT



Personnel 90,415.00 0.00 0.00 6,604.00 97,019.00Other 11,622.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,622.00Subcontracting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Direct costs 102,037.00 0.00 0.00 6,604.00 108,641.00Indirect costs 77,847.00 0.00 0.00 5,686.00 83,533.00Total costs 179,884.00 0.00 0.00 12,290.00 192,174.00Requested ECcontribution

134,913.00 0.00 0.00 12,290.00 147,203.00


Effort in WP(PM)

WP1 0.90WP4 13.54WP8 0.64Total in WPs 15.08

2.5.1.18.3 Major cost item explanations

WP1 (0.90) VTT contributed to the WP1 by performing reviews for the ”Best practises”chapter in the D1.4 – ”Converged architectural reference model for the IoT v2.0” and for thewhole deliverable D1.5 – ”Final architectural reference model for the IoT v3.0”.

WP4 (13.54) VTT’s work focused on design and implementation of Resolution Infrastruc-ture of IoT Services & Virtual Entities. Because VTT joined so late in the project it was notreasonable to integrate VTT’s contributions into the reference implementation of the Reso-lution Infrastructure developed during the project by other partners. Instead, VTT provided astandalone Resolution Infrastructure based on uID and M3 technologies where certain de-sign decisions were taken in a different way, but which still conforms to the IoT-A ArchitectureReference Model (IoT-A ARM).

WP8 (0.64) VTT contributed to the WP8 by disseminating and creating an exploitation planIoT-A project results. These activities are more closely described in D8.14

Travel (Other direct costs):

• WP1 & WP4: 2116,00 eBerlin, Germany, 2 persons, IoTA general assembly, 10-12

• WP4: 422,52 e, Oulu, Finland, IoTA internal project meeting, 1 person, 10-12

110

• WP4: 1393,59 e, Antwerpen, Belgium, 1 person, IoTA general assembly, 02-13

• WP4: 290,00 e, Oulu, Finland, IoTA internal project meeting, 1 person, 06-13

• WP1 & WP4: 2395,52 e, Helsinki, Finland, 3 persons, IoT week 17. - 20.6.2013, 06-13

• WP4: 438,90 e, Rome, Italy, IoTA final review, 12-13

Consumables: Computer supplies 3010,73 e(server). The VTT’s Resolution Infrastruc-ture was deployed to this server and it was used in performance evaluation.

Other costs: Conference participation fee and IoT week participation fees 1555,01 e

• Khan, S., Saastamoinen, J., Kiljander, J., Huusko, J. Korpi, J. Nurmi, J. PerformanceEvaluation of Distributed M3 Applications via ABSOLUT. The Eighth International Con-ference on Systems, ICONS 2013, January 27 - February 1, 2013, Seville, Spain,137-147.

111

aaaaaaproject periodic reportaaaaaa - cordis · on received feedback, this essential chap-ter has...

Documents