RE: Re: [Project] Kbd/LCD device

["Mick Furlong" <dorsai@xxxxxxx>]

I don't pretend to understand half this stuff but uPnP seems to be an
emerging standard for device communication.

Some good stuff on it here.....

http://www.chipcenter.com/circuitcellar/may01/c0501est4.htm

in particular it covers multi/unicast and soap. GENA and SSDP might cover
off event notification and device discovery. I don't think there are chip
level implementations out there yet but it looks like they are coming and
there are SDKs for Windows and Linux.

A list of related links below....

UPnP Forum
http://upnp.org

Windows SDK
www.microsoft.com/hwdev/upnp

Linux SDK
www.intel.com
http://upnp.sourceforge.net
http://intel.com/ial/upnp

Invensys plc
www.invensys.com

UPnP, HTTP, XML stacks
www.allegrosoft.com

Java-based UPnP, HTTP, XML stacks
www.metrolink.com

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.
www.mitsubishichips.com/products/mcu/index.html

NET+ARM chip with UPnP
www.netsilicon.com

Light controller used in the Microsoft SDK
www.x10.com


Mick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Hoye [mailto:james.hoye@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 04 June 2001 21:11
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ukha_d] Re: [Project] Kbd/LCD device
>
>
> This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet,
> a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > 3. Do we need an application level checksum to verify the
integrity
> > of each command? This would prevent the use of a simple telnet
> > session to interact with a device (unless it was optional/could
be
> > turned off). Should mis-formatted commands simply be ignored or
>
> What would be neat is some sort of digital signature to guarantee the
> authenicity of commands/packets.  Perhaps this should be catered
> for in the
> protocol definition, rather than in the device data itself.
>
> Would provide additional security when, perhaps, the devices are
> controlled
> remotely via the Internet or similar.  Also, remote
> authentication could be
> provided via smartcard or similar technology (we might as well branch
out
> into loads of different [relevant] areas of technology - can't do any
harm
> on individuals' CVs).
>
> James (wishing he actually had some time to contribute, but can offer
peer
> review/sanity check/ideas meanwhile...!)
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/