ICN Research Group                                              Y. Zhang
Internet-Draft                                            D. Raychadhuri
Intended status: Informational                WINLAB, Rutgers University
Expires: December 28, 2017                                     L. Grieco
                                               Politecnico di Bari (DEI)
                                                             E. Baccelli
                                                                J. Burke
                                                              UCLA REMAP
                                                            R. Ravindran
                                                                 G. Wang
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                             A. Lindgren
                                                              B. Ahlgren
                                                               RISE SICS
                                                              O. Schelen
                                          Lulea University of Technology
                                                           June 26, 2017

             Design Considerations for Applying ICN to IoT


   The Internet of Things (IoT) promises to connect billions of objects
   to the Internet.  After deploying many stand-alone IoT systems in
   different domains, the current trend is to develop a common, "thin
   waist" of protocols over a horizontal unified, defragmented IoT
   architecture.  Such an architecture will make objects accessible to
   applications across organizations and domains.  Towards this goal,
   quite a few proposals have been made to build an application-layer
   based unified IoT platform on top of today's host-centric Internet.
   However, there is a fundamental mismatch between the host-centric
   nature of todays Internet and mostly information-centric nature of
   the IoT system.  To address this mismatch, an information-centric
   network (ICN) architecture can provide a common set of protocols and
   services, called 'ICN-IoT', which can be used to build IoT platforms.
   ICN-IoT leverages the salient features of ICN, and thus provides
   naming, security, mobility support,scalability, and efficient content
   and service delivery.

   This draft summarizes general IoT demands, and covers the challenges
   and design considerations ICN faces to realize a ICN-IoT framework
   based on ICN architecture.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 28, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  IoT Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Motivating ICN for IoT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  IoT Architectural Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.1.  Naming  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.2.  Security and Privacy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.3.  Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.4.  Resource Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.5.  Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.6.  Contextual Communication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.7.  Handling Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.8.  Storage and Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.9.  Communication Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.10. Self-Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.11. Ad hoc and Infrastructure Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

     3.12. IoT Platform Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   4.  State of the Art  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.1.  Silo IoT Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.2.  Application-Layer Unified IoT Solutions . . . . . . . . .  16
       4.2.1.  Weaknesses of the Application-Layer Approach  . . . .  17
       4.2.2.  Suitability of Delay Tolerant Networking(DTN) . . . .  19
   5.  Advantages of using ICN for IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   6.  ICN Design Considerations for IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     6.1.  Naming Devices, Data, and Services  . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     6.2.  Name Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     6.3.  Security and Privacy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     6.4.  Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     6.5.  Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     6.6.  Routing and Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     6.7.  Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     6.8.  Contextual Communication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     6.9.  In-network Computing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     6.10. Self-Orgnization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     6.11. Communications Reliability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     6.12. Resource Constraints and Heterogeneity  . . . . . . . . .  35
   7.  Differences from T2TRG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   9.  Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   11. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48

1.  IoT Motivation

   During the past decade, many Internet of Things (IoT) systems have
   been developed and deployed in different domains.  The recent trend,
   however, is to evolve towards a more unified IoT architecture, in
   which a large number of objects connect to the Internet, available
   for interactions among themselves, as well as interactions with many
   different applications across boundaries of administration and
   domains.  General IoT applications involve sensing, processing, and
   secure content distribution occurring at various timescales and at
   multiple levels of hierarchy depending on the application
   requirements.  This requires the system to adopt a unified
   architecture providing pull, push and publish/subscribe mechanisms
   using application abstractions, common naming, payload, encryption
   and signature schemes.  This requires open APIs to be generic enough
   to support commonly used interactions between consumers, content
   producer, and IoT services, as opposed to proprietary APIs that are
   common in today's systems.  Building a unified IoT architecture,
   however, poses great challenges on the underlying network and
   systems.  To name a few, it needs to support 50-100 Billion networked
   objects [1], many of which are mobile.  The objects will have

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   extremely heterogeneous means of connecting to the Internet, often
   with severe resource constraints.  Interactions between the
   applications and objects are often real-time and dynamic, requiring
   strong security and privacy protections.  In addition, many IoT
   applications are inherently information centric (e.g., data consumers
   usually need data sensed from the environment without any reference
   to the sub-set of sensors that will provide the asked information).

   Taking a general IoT perspective, we first motivate the discussion of
   ICN for IoT using well known scenarios.  Then we discuss the IoT
   requirements generally applicable to many well known IoT scenarios.
   We then discuss how the current application-layer unified IoT
   architectures fail to meet these requirements.  We follow this by key
   ICN features that makes it a better candidate to realize an unified
   IoT framework.  We then discuss IoT design challenges from an ICN
   perspective and requirements posed towards its design.

2.  Motivating ICN for IoT

   ICN offers many features including name-based networking, content
   object security, caching, computing and storage, mobility, context-
   aware networking (see Section 3.6) and support for ad hoc networking
   features, all of which have to be realized in an application-specific
   means in the context of IP-IoT.  These compelling features enable a
   distributed and intelligent data distribution platform to support
   heterogeneous IoT services with features like device bootstrapping
   with minimal configuration, simpler protocols to aid self-organizing
   among the IoT elements, natural support for compute and caching logic
   at strategic points in the network.  We discuss these features
   through the following scenarios that are difficult to realize over IP
   today, and whose characteristics we argue match the features offered
   by ICN.

   o  Smart Mobility: Smarter end-user devices and Machine-to-Machine
      (M2M) connection are undergoing a significant growth.  By 2021,
      there will be more than 10 billion mobile devices and connection,
      including smartphones, tablets, wearables, vehicles [1].  Involved
      fields range from medical and healthcare, fitness, clothing, to
      environmental monitoring [40].  In particular, one of the most
      affected domain is transportation and the so-called Intelligent
      Transport Systems (ITS) [42].  It aims at providing multi-modal
      transportation, embracing public and private municipal, regional,
      national, trans-national vehicles and fleets.  This extremely
      heterogeneous eco-system of means of transportation is made
      available to users and citizens through advanced services.  These
      services are able to fulfill usability requirements while pursuing
      system level objectives, thus including: (i) the reduction of the
      CO2 footprint, (ii) the real-time delivery of specific goods,

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

      (iii) the reduction of traffic within urban areas, (iv) the
      provisioning of pleasant journeys to tourists, and (v) the general
      commitment of satisfactory travel time and experience [117].  In
      this context, IoT technologies can play a pivotal, in particular,
      Traffic Management Systems (TMS) aided by IoT technologies are
      creating novel approaches to traffic modeling [47].  Moreover,
      such features enable advanced design paradigms (e.g., Mobility as
      a Service (MaaS) [39]) with huge implications in systems
      architectures [48].  As a consequence, smart mobility support can
      be a significant use case of ICN-IoT.  The important ICN features
      that corroborate mobility support are:

      *  The location independence of content allows one to manage
         consumer mobility in a simpler way than IP.  Different from
         Mobile IP, that needs 'triangular routing' to locate moving
         hosts, ICN envisions that the consumers just needs to re-issue
         content requests after changing the attachment point [43];

      *  Since content is not bound to a specific location, it can be
         cached anywhere in the network.  This caching mechanism adds
         redundancy to the system.  Therefore, if the producer loses
         connectivity while it is moving, a content request can be
         resolved to an intermediate node en-route or routed towards a
         caching node [43];

      *  The content request-response communication paradigm decouples
         publications and subscriptions in time and space.  Therefore,
         entities involved are not aware of each other and do not need
         to be connected at the same time [44];

      *  The use of in-network Name Resolution Service design allows to
         identify content name's current location in the network, thanks
         to its network function of updating named entity location
         information [56].

      From a technological perspective, open challenges are: (i)
      interoperability across different IoT technologies; (ii) namespace
      design able to harmonize ITS standards; (iii) scalable data-
      sharing model across real-time (and non real-time) traffic
      sources; (iv) definition of travel-centric services based on ICN-
      IoT; (v) seamless support to mobility; (vi) content authentication
      and cryptography.

   o  Smart Building: Buildings are gaining smart capabilities that
      allow to enhance comfort, provide safety and security, manage
      efficiently energy [101].  In particular, smart buildings are no
      longer simple energy consumer, but can also be prosumers with on-
      site energy generation systems.  These systems can improve

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

      building's usability towards: (i) Smart heating, ventilation, and
      air conditioning (HVAC), (ii) Smart lightings, (iii) Plug loads,
      (iv) Smart windows.  The main requirements of those sub-systems
      are [101]: (i) context awareness; (ii) resource-constrained
      devices; (iii) interoperability across heterogeneous technologies;
      (iv) security and privacy protection.  The ICN paradigm could ease
      the fulfillment of those requirements because, usually, smart
      building services are information centric by design: this means
      that every time an autonomic management loop is established within
      the smart building to control some physical variables of interest,
      the information exchanged between users, sensors, actuators, and
      controllers do not immediately translate to specific nodes within
      the building but could be provided by multiple sensors / gateways.
      The relevance of ICN in Smart Building is recognized in literature
      with reference to the several frameworks deployed in various
      environments.  For instance, in [61], nodes are distributed in
      different rooms, floors, and buildings of a campus university and
      their energy consumption and individual behavior are monitored.
      Smart home application is investigated in [103], by evaluating
      data retrieval delay and data packet loss.  Moreover, [104]
      designed and tested lighting control over NDN in a theater.  In
      this context, specific ICN challenges are: (i) design of a
      scalable namespace for uniquely identifying the information of
      interest, (ii) data-sharing model across heterogeneous systems,
      (iii) self-organizing functionalities for improving network
      connections between end-nodes, utilities and the control center,
      (iv) authentication procedures to grant data confidentiality and

   o  Smart Grid: Smart Grids are increasingly transforming into cyber-
      physical systems [18] with the goal of maximum automation towards
      efficiency and minimal human intervention.  The system is very
      complex comprising of power distribution grids, end user
      applications (e.g.  EV charging systems, appliances etc), smart
      monitoring systems (spanning end user and the power grids),
      heterogeneous energy producing sources (including prosumers), and
      load distribution and balancing systems.  Current smart grid
      systems are managed using Supservisory Control and Data
      Acquisition (SCADA) frameworks that are centralized and highly
      restrictive unidirectional communication support [19].  Hence the
      requirement is towards : 1) greater flexibility to distribute the
      energy from the feeder through real-time reconfiguration of
      multiple monitoring devices (e.g. phasor measurement units
      (PMUs)), and management operations which require efficient data
      delivery infrastructure; 2) large scale data delivery
      infrastructure, which also include latency sensitive applications,
      inter-connecting heterogeneous smart grid producing, monitoring
      and consuming end user devices; 3) Resiliency,which is critical to

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

      the operation and protection of the grid; 4)Security, to protect
      mission critical grid applications from network intrusions ; 5)
      understanding machine-to-machine traffic patterns for optimal
      placement of storage and computing for maximum efficiency.  Smart
      grids can benefit from ICN in the following ways [20] :

      *  Smart grid will benefit from naming content than hosts, as it
         is more likely that data generated by one subsystem will be
         useful for multiple entities.  Further, naming content allows
         to enable many-to-many model of communication, which is very
         in-efficient in host-centric architectures.

      *  ICN features of in-network computing, storage and caching will
         enable better use of network resources and benefit diverse
         application needs varying from applications that has low
         bitrate and is latency tolerant (e.g. smart grid and energy
         pricing) to higher data rate ones with stringent delay/
         disruption requirements (e.g. synchrophasor measurements).
         Also it is typical in smart grid systems to have applications
         consuming the same data at different rates in which case in-
         network caching and computing could help.

      *  Host-centric networking exposes a mission critical
         infrastructure like smart grid infrastructure to intrusion and
         DOS attacks, this is directly related to exposing the IP
         addresses of critical applications and subsystems.  Naming
         content, service or device de-couples it from the location,
         reducing the exposure to target a specific smart grid subsystem
         based on a geographical context.

      *  ICN's name based networking offers the potential for self-
         configuration both during bootstrapping and during the regular
         operation of the grid allowing scalable operation and self-
         recovery during faults or maintenance tasks in the system.

   o  Smart Industrial Automation : In a smart and connected industry
      environment, there is a multitude of equipment with sensors that
      generate large volumes of data during normal operation.  This
      range from highly time-critical data for real-time control of
      production processes, to less time-critical data that is collected
      to central cloud environment for control room monitoring, to pure
      log data without latency requirements that is mainly kept for a
      posteriori analysis.  Industrial wireless networks are harsh
      environments with lots of potential interference at the same time
      as hard reliability and real-time requirements are placed by many
      applications.  This means that available network capacity is not
      always high, so congestion is likely to be experienced by traffic
      with less stringent timing requirements.  One such example is when

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

      errors occur in the production process, a mobile workforce will
      need to investigate the problem on-site and will need high
      resolution data from the faulty machine as well as other process
      data from other parts of the plant.  The mobile workforce will
      locally perform diagnostics or maintenance and they rely on the
      information from the production system both for safety and to
      solve any issues in the plant.  They rely on both historical data
      in order to pinpoint the root cause of the problems, as well as
      the current data flows in order to assess the present state of the
      equipment under control.  High resolution measurements are
      generated close to the mobile workforce while the historic data
      has to be retrieved from the historian servers.  Multiple workers
      involved in the process will access the same data, possibly with a
      slight time-shift.  The network thus need to support a mobile
      users to get access to data flows in a way suitable for their
      physical location and task requirements.  Introducing ICN
      functionality into the system can introduce several benefits that
      will enhance the working experience and productivity for the
      mobile workforce.

      *  When using ICN, naming of data can be done in a way that
         corresponds well to the current names often used in industrial
         scenarios as the hierarchical names defined by OPC Foundation
         [10] maps well to the CCN/NDN name space.

      *  ICN provides the possibility to get newest data without knowing
         the location of the caches or whether a particular piece of
         data is available locally or in a central repository.  Also
         gives the possibility to get either local high-resolution data
         or remote low-resolution data (no need to store all data
         centrally, which is maybe not even possible due to large data
         volumes).  May require known naming conventions or routing
         policies that can route interests to the right location.

      *  Reduces network usage as unnecessary data is not transmitted,
         and data accessed by multiple workers is only sent once.

      *  Workforce mobility between different access points in the
         factory is inherently supported without the need to maintain
         connection state.

      *  Removing tedious configurations in clients since that is
         provided by the infrastructure.

      *  Allow sharing of large data volumes between users that are in
         physical proximity without introducing additional traffic on
         the backbone.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

      *  Caching of data means avoiding database accesses to a
         distributed redundant database in the central infrastructure
         with consistency requirements.

3.  IoT Architectural Requirements

   A unified IoT platform has to support interactions among a large
   number of mobile devices across the boundaries of organizations and
   domains.  As a result, it naturally poses stringent requirements in
   every aspect of the system design.  Below, we outline a few important
   requirements that a unified IoT platform has to address.

3.1.  Naming

   An important step towards realizing a unified IoT architecture is the
   ability to assign names that are unique to each device, data items
   generated by these devices, or a group of devices towards a common
   objective.  Naming has the following requirements.  Firstly, names
   need to be persistent against dynamic features that are common in IoT
   systems, such as lifetime, mobility or migration.  Secondly, names
   that are derived from the keys need to be self-certifying, for both
   device-centric communication and content-centric communication.  For
   device-centric communication, the binding between device names and
   the device must be secure.  For content-centric communication, the
   binding between the names and the content has to be secure.  Thirdly,
   names usually serve multiple purposes: routing, security (self-
   certifying) or human-readability.  For IoT applications, the choice
   of flat versus human readable names needs to be made considering
   application and network requirements such as privacy and network
   level scalability, and the name space explosion that may occur
   because of complex relationship between name hierarchies [120] which
   might confound application logic.  In order to ensure the
   trustworthiness of the names, a name certificate service (NCS) needs
   to be considered.  Such a service acts as a certificate authority in
   assigning names, which are themselves public keys or appropriately
   bound to the name for verification at the consumer's end.  In short,
   the NCS must provide services analogous to those provided by a Public
   Key Infrastructure (PKI).  In ICN, users may either generate their
   own public keys and submit them to the NCS for registration, or may
   contact the NCS to acquire public keys.  Consequently, the NCS
   publishes approved cryptographic suites, object categories and object
   description formats, as well as allows users to self-certify

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

3.2.  Security and Privacy

   A variety of security and privacy concerns exist in IoT.  For example
   the unified IoT architecture makes physical objects accessible to
   applications across organizations and domains.  Further, it often
   integrates with critical infrastructure and industrial systems with
   life safety implications, bringing with it significant security
   challenges and regulatory requirements [13], as will be discussed in
   Section 6.3.  Security and privacy thus become a serious concern, as
   does the flexibility and usability of the design approaches.  Beyond
   the overarching trust management challenge, security includes data
   integrity, authentication, and access control at different layers of
   the IoT architecture.  Privacy includes several aspects: (1) privacy
   of data producer/consumer that is directly related to each individual
   vertical domain such as heath, electricity, etc., (2) privacy of data
   content, and (3) privacy of contextual information such as time and
   location of data transmission [65].

3.3.  Scalability

   Cisco predicts there will be around 50 Billion IoT devices such as
   sensors, RFID tags, and actuators, on the Internet by 2020 [1].  As
   mentioned above, a unified IoT platform needs to name every entity
   such as data, device, service etc.  Scalability has to be addressed
   at multiple levels of the IoT architecture including naming,
   security, name resolution, routing and forwarding level.  Mobility
   adds further challenge in terms of scalability.  Particularly with
   respect to name resolution the system should be able to
   register/update/resolve a name within a short latency.  In addition
   scalability is also affected because of IoT system specific features
   such as IoT resource object count, state and rate of information
   updates generated by the sensing devices.

3.4.  Resource Constraints

   IoT devices can be broadly classified as type 1, type 2, and type 3
   devices, with type 1 the most resource-constrained and type 3 the
   most resource-rich [45].  In general, there are the following types
   of resources: power, computing, storage, bandwidth, and user

   Power constraints of IoT devices limit how much data these devices
   can communicate, as it has been shown that communications consume
   more power than other activities for embedded devices [46].  Flexible
   techniques to collect the relevant information are required, and
   uploading every single produced data to a central server is
   undesirable.  Computing constraints limit the type and amount of
   processing these devices can perform.  As a result, more complex

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   processing needs to be conducted in cloud servers or at opportunistic
   points, example at the network edge, hence it is important to balance
   local computation versus communication cost.

   Storage constraints of the IoT devices limit the amount of data that
   can be stored on the devices.  This constraint means that unused
   sensor data may need to be discarded or stored in aggregated compact
   form time to time.  Bandwidth constraints of the IoT devices limit
   the amount of communication.  Such devices will have the same
   implication on the system architecture as with the power constraints;
   namely, we cannot afford to collect single sensor data generated by
   the device and/or use complex signaling protocols.  It is also worth
   mentioning that idle chatter in the background is strongly
   discouraged to maintain connectivity or other volatile state.

   User interface constraints refer to whether the device is itself
   capable of directly interacting with a user should the need arise
   (e.g., via a display and keypad or LED indicators) or requires the
   network connectivity, either global or local, to interact with

   The above discussed device constraints also affect application
   performance with respect to latency.

3.5.  Traffic Characteristics

   IoT traffic can be broadly classified into local area traffic and
   wide area traffic.  Local area traffic is among nearby devices.  For
   example, neighboring cars may work together to detect potential
   hazards on the highway, sensors deployed in the same room may
   collaborate to determine how to adjust the heating level in the room.
   These local area communications often involve data aggregation and
   filtering, have real time constraints, and require fast device/data/
   service discovery and association.  At the same time, the IoT
   platform has to also support wide area communications.  For example,
   in Intelligent Transportation Systems, re-routing operations may
   require a broad knowledge of the status of the system, traffic load,
   availability of freights, whether forecasts and so on.  Wide area
   communications require efficient data/service discovery and
   resolution services.

   While traffic characteristics for different IoT systems are expected
   to be different, certain IoT systems have been analyzed and shown to
   have comparable uplink and downlink traffic volume in some
   applications such as [2], which means that we have to optimize the
   bandwidth/energy consumption in both directions.  Further, IoT
   traffic demonstrates certain periodicity and burstiness [2].  As a

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   result, when provisioning the system, the shape of the traffic volume
   has to be properly accounted for.

3.6.  Contextual Communication

   Many IoT applications rely on dynamic contexts in the IoT system to
   initiate, maintain and terminate communication among IoT devices.
   Here, we refer to a context as attributes applicable to a group of
   devices that share some common features, such as their owners may
   have a certain social relationship or belong to the same
   administrative group, or the devices may be present in the same
   location.  There are two types of contexts: long-term quasi static
   contexts and short-term dynamic contexts.  In this draft, we focus on
   the latter, which are more challenging to support, requiring fast
   formation, update, lookup and association For example, cars traveling
   on the highway may form a "cluster" based upon their temporal
   physical proximity as well as the detection of the same event.  These
   temporary groups are referred to as contexts.  IoT applications need
   to support interactions among the members of a context, as well as
   interactions across contexts.

   Temporal context can be broadly categorized into two classes, long-
   term contexts such as those that are based upon social contacts as
   well as stationary physical locations (e.g., sensors in a car/
   building), and short-term contexts such as those that are based upon
   temporary proximity (e.g., all taxicabs within half a mile of the
   Time Square at noon on Oct 1, 2013).  Between these two classes,
   short-term contexts are more challenging to support, requiring fast
   formation, update, lookup and association.

3.7.  Handling Mobility

   There are several degrees of mobility in a unified IoT architecture,
   ranging from static as in fixed assets to highly dynamic in vehicle-
   to-vehicle environments.

   Mobility in the IoT architecture can mean 1) the data producer
   mobility (i.e., location change), 2) the data consumer mobility, 3)
   IoT Network mobility (e.g., a body-area network in motion as a person
   is walking); and 4) disconnection between the data source and
   destination pair (e.g., due to unreliable wireless links).  The
   requirement on mobility support is to be able to deliver IoT data
   below an application's acceptable delay constraint in all of the
   above cases, and if necessary to negotiate different connectivity or
   security constraints specific to each mobile context.  More detailed
   discussions are presented in Section 6.7.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

3.8.  Storage and Caching

   Storage and caching plays a very significant role depending on the
   type of IoT ecosystem, also a function subjected to privacy and
   security guidelines.  Caching is usually done for increasing data
   availability in the network and reliability purposes, especially in
   wireless scenarios in the network access.  Storage is more important
   for IoT, storing data for long term analysis.  Data is stored in
   strategic locations in the network to reduce control and computation
   overhead.  In a unified IoT architecture, depending on application
   requirements, content caching will be strictly driven by application
   level policies considering privacy requirements.  If for certain kind
   of IoT data pervasive caching is allowed, intermediate nodes don't
   need to always forward a content request to its original creator;
   rather, receiving a cached copy is sufficient for IoT applications.
   This optimization may greatly reduce the content access latencies.

   Furthermore considering hierarchical nature of IoT systems, ICN
   architectures enable flexible heterogeneous and potentially fault-
   tolerant approach to storage providing persistence at multiple

   Hence in the context of IoT while ICN allows resolution to replicated
   stored copies, it should also strive for the balance between content
   security/privacy and regulations considering application

3.9.  Communication Reliability

   IoT applications can be broadly categorized into mission critical and
   non-mission critical.  For mission critical applications, reliable
   communication is one of the most important features as these
   applications have strong QoS requirements such as low latency and
   probability of error during information transfer.  To summarize,
   reliable communication desires the following capabilities for the
   underlying system: (1) seamless mobility support under normal
   operating conditions, (2) efficient routing in the presence of
   intermittent disconnection, (3) QoS aware routing, (4) support for
   redundancy at all levels of a system (device, service, network,
   storage etc.), and (5) support for rich and diverse communication
   patterns, both within an IoT domain consisting of multiple IoT nodes
   and one or more gateway nodes to the Internet and across multiple
   such domains.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

3.10.  Self-Organization

   The unified IoT architecture should be able to self-organize to meet
   various application requirements, especially the capability to
   quickly discover heterogeneous and relevant (local or global)
   devices/data/services based on the context.  This discovery can be
   achieved through an efficient publish-subscribe service, or through
   private community grouping/clustering based upon trust and other
   security requirements.  In the former case, the publish-subscribe
   service must be efficiently implemented, able to support seamless
   mobility, in- network caching, name-based routing, etc.  In the
   latter case, the IoT architecture needs to discover the private
   community groups/clusters efficiently.

   Another aspect of self-organization is decoupling the sensing
   Infrastructure from applications.  In a unified IoT architecture,
   various applications run on top of a vast number of IoT devices.
   Upgrading the firmware of the IoT devices is a difficult work.  It is
   also not practical to reprogram the IoT devices to accommodate every
   change of the applications.  The infrastructure and the application
   specific logics need to be decoupled.  A common interface is required
   to dynamically configure the interactions between the IoT devices and
   easily modify the application logics on top of the sensing/actuating
   infrastructure [30] [31].

3.11.  Ad hoc and Infrastructure Mode

   Depending upon whether there is communication infrastructure, an IoT
   system can operate either in ad-hoc or infrastructure mode.

   For example, a vehicle may determine to report its location and
   status information to a server periodically through cellular
   connection, or, a group of vehicles may form an ad-hoc network that
   collectively detect road conditions around them.  In the cases where
   infrastructure is unavailable, one of the participating nodes may
   choose to become the temporary gateway.

   The unified IoT architecture needs to design a common protocol that
   serves both modes.  Such a protocol should address the challenges
   that arise in these two modes: (1) scalability and low latency for
   the infrastructure mode and (2) efficient neighbor discovery and ad-
   hoc communication for the ad-hoc mode.  Finally we note that hybrid
   modes are very common in realistic IoT systems.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

3.12.  IoT Platform Management

   An IoT platforms' service, control and data plane will be governed by
   its own management infrastructure which includes distributed and
   centralized middleware, discovery, naming, self-configuring, analytic
   functions, and information dissemination to achieve specific IoT
   system objectives [25][26][27].  Towards this, new IoT management
   mechanisms and service metrics need to be developed to measure the
   success of an IoTdeployment.  Considering an IoT systems' defining
   characteristics such as, its potential large number of IoT devices,
   objective to save power, mobility, and ad hoc communication,
   autonomic self-management mechanisms become very critical.  Further
   considering its hierarchical information processing deployment model,
   the platform needs to orchestrate computational tasks according to
   the involved sensors and the available computation resources which
   may change over time.  An efficient computation resource discovery
   and management protocol is required to facilitate this process.  The
   trade-off between information transmission and processing is another

4.  State of the Art

   Over the years, many stand-alone IoT systems have been deployed in
   various domains.  These systems usually adopt a vertical silo
   architecture and support a small set of pre-designated applications.
   A recent trend, however, is to move away from this approach, towards
   a unified IoT architecture in which the existing silo IoT systems, as
   well as new systems that are rapidly deployed.  By unified, we mean
   all the application and network components that use common APIs to
   interact with each other.  This will make their data and services
   accessible to general Internet applications (as in ETSI- M2M and
   oneM2M standards).  In such a unified architecture, resources can be
   accessed over Internet and shared across the physical boundaries of
   the enterprise.  However, current approaches to achieve this
   objective are mostly based upon service overlays over the Internet,
   whose inherent inefficiencies due to IP protocol [56] hinders the
   architecture from satisfying the IoT requirements outlined earlier,
   particularly in terms of scalability, security, mobility, and self-
   organization, discussed more in Section 4.2.

4.1.  Silo IoT Architecture

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

                          [IoT Server]
    _______             {              }
   {       }            {              }
   {IoT Dev}\           {   Internet   }---[IoT Application]
   {_______}  [IoTGW]---{              }
                        {              }

      Figure 1:Silo architecture of standalone IoT systems

   A typical standalone IoT system is illustrated in Figure 1, which
   includes devices, a gateway, a server and applications.  Many IoT
   devices have limited power and computing resources, unable to
   directly run normal IP access network (Ethernet, WIFI, 3G/LTE etc.)
   protocols.  Therefore they use the IoT gateway to the server.
   Through the IoT server, applications can subscribe to data collected
   by devices, or interact with devices.

   There have been quite a few popular protocols for standalone IoT
   systems, such as DF-1, MelsecNet, Honeywell SDS, BACnet, etc.
   However, these protocols are operating at the device-level
   abstraction, instead of information driven, which may sometimes lead
   to a fragmented protocol space that requires a higher-level solution
   for better interoperability.

4.2.  Application-Layer Unified IoT Solutions

   The current approach to a unified IoT architecture is to make IoT
   gateways and servers adopt standard APIs.  IoT devices connect to the
   Internet through the standard APIs and IoT applications subscribe and
   receive data through standard control and data APIs.  Building on top
   of today's Internet this application-layer unified IoT architecture
   is the most practical approach towards a unified IoT platform.
   Towards this, there are ongoing standardization efforts including
   ETSI[3], oneM2M[4].  Network operators can use frameworks to build
   common IOT gateways and servers for their customers.  In addition,
   IETF's CORE working group [5] is developing a set of protocols like
   CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol) [78], that is a lightweight
   protocol modeled after HTTP [79] and adapted specifically for the
   Internet of Things (IoT).  CoAP adopts the Representational State
   Transfer (REST) architecture with Client-Server interactions.  It
   uses UDP as the underlying transport protocol with reliability and
   multicast support.  Both CoAP and HTTP are considered as the suitable

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   application level protocols for Machine-to-Machine communications, as
   well as IoT.  For example, oneM2M (which is one of leading standards
   for unified M2M architecture) has both the protocol bindings to HTTP
   and CoAP for its primitives.  Figure 2 shows the architecture adopted
   in this approach.

              Publishing----[IoT Server]----Subscribing--
                  |        /    |       \                |
                  |       /     |        \               |
                  |      /______|_______  \              |
 ___________      |     /{              }  publishing    |
{           }     |    | {              }     |          |
{Smart Homes}\    |    | {   Internet   }---------[IoT Application]
{___________}  [IoTGW]---{              }\    |     ________________
                       | {              } \   |    {                }
                       | {______________}  [IoTGW]-{Smart Healthcare}
                       |        |                  {________________}
              Publishing [IoTGW]
                       |    ____|_____
                       |   {          }
                        ---{Smart Grid}

Figure 2: Implementing an open IoT architecture through standardized APIs
             on the IoT gateways and the server

4.2.1.  Weaknesses of the Application-Layer Approach

   The above application-layer approach can work with many different
   protocols, but the system is built upon today's IP network, which has
   inherent weaknesses towards supporting a unified IoT system.  As a
   result, it cannot satisfy some of the requirements we outlined in
   Section 3:

   o  Naming.  In current application-layer IoT systems the naming
      scheme is host centric, i.e., the name of a given resource/service
      is linked to the device that can provide it.  In turn, device
      names are coupled to IP addresses, which are not persistent in
      mobile scenarios.  On the other side, in IoT systems the same
      service/ resource could be offered by different devices.

   o  Security and Trust.  In IP, the security and trust model is based
      on session established between two hosts.  Session-based protocols
      rely on the exchange of several messages before a secure session
      is established.  Use of such protocols in constrained IoT devices

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

      can have serious consequences in terms of energy efficiency
      because transmission and reception of messages is often more
      costly than the cryptographic operations.  The problem may be
      amplified with the number of nodes the constrained device has to
      interact with because of both the computation cost and per session
      key state required to be managed by the constrained device.  Also
      the trust management schemes are still relatively weak, focusing
      on securing communication channels rather than managing the data
      that needs to be secured directly.  Though key management in ICN
      is no less complex than in host based interactions, the benefits
      is associated with the security credentials in the content instead
      of the host.  Trust is via keys that are bound to names through
      certificates whose private keys are held by the principals of the
      system, with IP focusing on the channel model of security while
      ICN focusing on the object model.

   o  Mobility.  The application-layer approach uses IP addresses as
      names at the network layer, which hinders the support for device/
      service mobility or flexible name resolution.  Further the Layer
      2/3 management, and application-layer addressing and forwarding
      required to deploy current IoT solutions limit the scalability and
      management of these systems.

   o  Resource constraints.  The application-layer approach requires
      every device to send data to an aggregator, gateway or to the IoT
      server.  Resource constraints of the IoT devices, especially in
      power and bandwidth, could seriously limit the performance of this
      approach.  On the other hand, ICN supports in-network
      computing/caching/storage, which can alleviate this problem.

   o  Traffic Characteristics.  In this approach, applications are
      written in a host-centric manner suitable for point-to-point
      communication.  IoT requires multicast support that is challenging
      the application-layer based IoT systems today, which has only
      limited deployment in current Internet.

   o  Contextual Communications.  This application-layer based IoT
      approach may not react to dynamic contextual changes in a timely
      fashion.  The main reason is that context lists are usually kept
      at the IoT server in this approach, and they cannot help
      efficiently route requests information at the network layer.

   o  Storage and Caching.  The application-layer approach supports
      application-centric storage and caching but not what ICN envisions
      at the network layer, or flexible storage enabled via name-based
      routing or name-based lookup.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   o  Self-Organization.  The application-layer approach is topology-
      based as it is bound to IP semantics, and thus does not
      sufficiently satisfy the self-organization requirement.  In
      addition to topological self-organization, IoT also requires data-
      and service-level self-organization [97], which is not supported
      by this approach.

   o  Ad-hoc and infrastructure mode.  As mentioned above, the overlay-
      based approach lacks self-organization, and thus does not provide
      efficient support for the ad-hoc mode of communication.

4.2.2.  Suitability of Delay Tolerant Networking(DTN)

   In [21][22], delay-tolerant networking (DTN) has been considered to
   support future IoT architecture.  DTN was created to support
   information delivery in the presence of network disruptions and
   disconnections, which has been extended to support heterogeneous
   networks and name-based routing.  The DTN Bundle Protocol is able to
   achieve some of these same advantages and could be beneficially used
   in an IoT network to, for example, decouple sender and receiver.  The
   DTN architecture is however centered around named endpoints (endpoint
   IDs), which usually correspond to a host or a service, and is mainly
   a way to transport data, while ICN provides a different paradigm
   centered around named data that addresses additional issues for IoT
   applications [23] through features such as information naming,
   information discovery, information request and dissemination.  Also,
   the endpoint IDs could be used to also identify named content,
   enabling the use of the bundle protocol as a transport mechanism for
   an information-centric system.  Such a use of the bundle protocol as
   transport would however still require other components from an ICN
   architecture such as naming conventions, so since the exact transport
   is not a major focus of the issues in this draft, most of of the
   discussions are applicable to a generic ICN architecture in general.

5.  Advantages of using ICN for IoT

   A key concept of ICN is the ability to name data independently from
   the current location at which it is stored, which simplifies caching
   and enables decoupling of sender and receiver.  Using ICN to design
   an architecture for IoT data potentially provides many such
   advantages compared to using traditional host-centric networks and
   other new architectures.  This section highlights general benefits
   that ICN could provide to IoT networks.

   o  Naming of Devices, Data and Services.  The heterogeneity of both
      network equipment deployed and services offered by IoT networks
      leads to a large variety of data, services and devices.  While
      using a traditional host-centric architecture, only devices or

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

      their network interfaces are named at the network level, leaving
      to the application layer the task to name data and services.  This
      causes different applications to use different naming schemes, and
      no consistent mapping from application layer names to network
      names exist.  In many common applications of IoT networks, data
      and services are the main goal, and ICN provides an intuitive way
      to name those in a way that can be utilized on the network layer
      as well.  Communication with a specific device is often secondary,
      but when needed, the same ICN naming mechanisms can be used.  The
      network distributes content and provides a service, instead of
      only sending data between two named devices.  In this context,
      data content and services can be provided by several devices, or
      group of devices, hence naming data and services is often more
      important than naming the devices.  This naming mechanism also
      enables self-configuration of the IoT system.

   o  Security and privacy.  ICN advocates the model of object security
      to secure data in the network.  This concept is based on the idea
      of securing information objects unlike session-based security
      mechanisms which secure the communication channel between a pair
      of nodes.  ICN provides data integrity through Name-Data
      Integrity, i.e., the guarantee that the given data corresponds to
      the name with which it was addressed.  Signature-based schemes can
      additionally provide data authenticity, meaning establishing the
      origin, or provenance, of the data, for example, by
      cryptographically linking a data object to the identity of a
      publisher.  Confidentiality can be handled on a per object basis
      based on keys established at the application level.  All of this
      means that the actual transmission of data does not have to be
      secured as the same security mechanisms protect the data after
      generation until consumed by a client, regardless of whether it is
      in transit over a communication channel or stored in an
      intermediate cache.  In an ICN network, each individual object
      within a stream of immutable objects could potentially be
      retrieved from a cache in a different location.  Having a trust
      relationship with each of these different caches is not realistic.
      Through Name-Data Integrity, ICN automatically guarantees data
      integrity to the requester regardless of the location from where
      it is delivered.  The Object Security model also ensures that the
      content is readily available in a secure state in the device
      constraints are severe enough that it is not able to perform the
      required cryptographic operations for Object Security, it may be
      possible to offload this operation to a trusted gateway to which
      only a single secure channel needs to be established.  ICN can
      also derive a name from a public key; cryptographic hash of a
      public key also enables them to be self-certifying, i.e.,
      authenticating the resource object does not require an external
      authority [25][26].

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   o  Distributed Caching and Processing.  While caching mechanisms are
      already used by other types of overlay networks, IoT networks can
      potentially benefit even more from caching and in-network
      processing systems, because of their resource constraints.
      Wireless bandwidth and power supply can be limited for multiple
      devices sharing a communication channel, and for small mobile
      devices powered by batteries.  In this case, avoiding unnecessary
      transmissions with IoT devices to retrieve and distribute IoT data
      to multiple places is important, hence processing and storing such
      content in the network can save wireless bandwidth and battery
      power.  Moreover, as for other types of networks, applications for
      IoT networks requiring shorter delays can benefit from local
      caches and services to reduce delays between content request and

   o  Decoupling between Sender and Receiver.  IoT devices may be mobile
      and face intermittent network connectivity.  When specific data is
      requested, such data can often be delivered by ICN without any
      consistent direct connectivity between devices.  Apart from using
      structured caching systems as described previously, information
      can also be spread by forwarding data opportunistically.

6.  ICN Design Considerations for IoT

   This section outlines some of the ICN specific design considerations
   and challenges that must be considered when adopting an ICN design
   for IoT applications and systems, and describes some of the trade
   offs that will be involved in order to support large scale IoT
   deployment with diverse application requirements.

   Though ICN integrates content/service/host abstraction, name-based
   routing, compute, caching/storage as part of the network
   infrastructure, IoT requires special considerations given
   heterogeneity of devices and interfaces such as for constrained
   networking [61][119][121], data processing, and content distribution
   models to meet specific application requirements which we identify as
   challenges in this section.

6.1.  Naming Devices, Data, and Services

   The ICN approach of named data and services (i.e., device independent
   naming) is typically desirable when retrieving IoT data.  However,
   data centric naming may also pose challenges.

   o  Naming of devices: Naming devices can be useful in an IoT system.
      For example, actuators require clients to act on a specific node
      of the deployed network, e.g. to switch it on or off; or it could
      be necessary to access to a particular device for administrator

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

      purposes.  This can be achieved through the specific name that
      uniquely identify the network entity of interest.  Moreover, a
      persistent name allows a device to change attachment point without
      loosing its identity.  A friendly way to address devices is using
      contextual hierarchical names, where the same types of names as
      for data objects can be used.  To ensure that the device is always
      reached, it is important that it is possible to disable caching
      and request aggregation, if used, for such names.

   o  Size of data/service name: Content name can have variable length.
      Since each name has to uniquely identify the content and can also
      include self-certifying properties (e.g., the hash of the content
      is bound to the name), its length can reach high values.  In
      particular, according to the specific application, content name
      size can exceed Data size.  This can be the case of IoT sensed
      values that usually consist in few bytes: data could be as small
      as a short integer in case of temperature values, or one-byte in
      case of control messages of an actuator state (on/off).  Moreover,
      a too long name would probably incur in fragmentation at the link
      layer, and related problems such as, several transmissions, delay
      and security issues.  Viable solutions to handle ICN packets
      fragmentation and reassembly have been investigated in literature.
      For instance, the work in [105] proposes to perform the operations
      hop-by-hop: each hop fragments the packet that has to be forwarded
      and reassembles the packet received for further processing.  This
      mechanism allows to efficiently handle the recovery of lost or
      corrupted fragments locally, thus reducing packet delivery
      failures that require application-level retransmissions.

   o  Hash-based content name: Hash algorithms are commonly used to name
      content in order to verify that the content is the one requested.
      This is only possible in contexts where the requested object is
      already existing, and where there is a directory service to look
      up names or learned through a manifest service.  This approach is
      suitable for systems with large data objects where it is important
      to verify the content.

   o  Hierarchical names: The use of hierarchical names, such as in the
      CCN and NDN architectures make it easier to create names a priori
      and also provides a convenient way to use the same naming scheme
      for node names.  Since the names are not self-certifying, this
      will require other mechanisms for verification of object
      integrity.  If routing is also done on the hierarchical names, the
      system will loose some of its location independence and caching
      will mostly only be done on the path to the publisher.

   o  Semantic and Metadata based content name: A semantic-based naming
      approach can allow a successful name retrieving through keywords

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

      (for example, 'noise level at position X'), even if a perfect
      matching of name is not available [62].  Moreover, enriching
      contents with metadata allows to better describe them and to
      establish association between similar ones.  However this
      mechanism require more advanced functionality for matching of such
      metadata in data objects to the semantics of the name (such as
      comparing the position information of an object with the position
      information of the requested name).  The need for such potentially
      computationally heavy tasks in intermediate nodes in the network
      may be considered understanding the trade-offs in terms of
      application and network performance.

   o  Naming of services: Similar to naming of devices or data, services
      can be referred to with a unique identifier, provided by a
      specific device or by someone assigned by a central authority as
      the service provider.  It can however also be a service provided
      by anyone meeting some certain metadata conditions.  Example of
      services include content retrieval, that takes a content name/
      description as input and returns the value of that content, and
      actuation, that takes an actuation command as input and possibly
      returns a status code afterwards.

   o  Trust: Names can be used to verify the authenticity and integrity
      of the data.  To provide security functionalities through names,
      it is possible to use different approaches.  On one hand,
      hierarchical, schematized, Web-of-Trust models allow the public
      key verification.  On the other hand, self-certifying names allow
      in-network integrity check of the name-key or name-content binding
      without the need of a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) or other
      third party to establish whether the key is trustworthy or not.
      This can be realized (i) directly: the hash of the content is
      bound to the name; or (ii) indirectly: first, the hash of the
      content is signed with the secret key of the publisher, then the
      public key of the publisher and the signed hash are bound to the
      name [44].  The hash algorithm can be applied to already existing
      contents and where there is a directory service or manifests to
      look up names.  In case of contents not yet published, but
      generated on demand, the hash cannot be known a priori.  Thus,
      different trust mechanisms should be investigated.  Moreover,
      self-certified names approach can hide content semantics, thus
      making names less human friendly.  Since trends show that users
      prefer to find contents through search engine using keywords, non-
      human-friendly names could be a barrier unless the content is
      enriched with keywords.  But, this problem does not concern M2M
      applications.  In fact, human-readable names may not be useful in
      a context of just communicating machines.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   o  Flexibility: Further challenges arise for hierarchical naming
      schema: referring to requirements on "constructible names" and
      "on-demand publishing" [35][36].  TThe former entails that each
      user is able to construct the name of a desired data item through
      specific algorithms and that it is possible to retrieve
      information also using partially specified names.  The latter
      refers the possibility to request a content that has not yet been
      published in the past, thus triggering its creation.

   o  Scoping : From an application's point of view, scopes are used to
      gather related data.  From the network's perspective, instead,
      scopes are used to mark where the content is available[65].  For
      instance, nodes involved in caching coordination can vary
      according to scope[66].  As a consequence, scoping allows to limit
      packet request propagation, improving bandwidth and energy
      resources usage, and control content dissemination thanks to
      access control rules, different for each scope[64].  However,
      relying on scoping for security/privacy has been shown to not work
      all that well for IP, and is unlikely to work well for ICN either.
      However, scoping may be useful to limit interest propagation,
      provide a simple means to attain context-sensitive communication,
      etc.  Finally, perimeter- and channel-based access control is
      often violated in current networks to enable over-the-wire updates
      and cloud-based services, so scoping is unlikely to replace a need
      for data-centric security in ICN.

   o  Confidentiality: As names can reveal information about the nature
      of the communication or more importantly violate privacy,
      mechanisms for name confidentiality should be available in the
      ICN-IoT architecture.  To grant confidentiality protection, some
      approaches have been proposed in order to handle access control in
      ICN naming scheme such as Attribute-Based Encryption [63]  and
      access control delegation scheme [64].  In the first solution, a
      Trusted Third Party assigns a set of attributes to each network
      entity.  Then, a publisher (i) encrypts the data with a random
      key; (II) generates the metadata for the decryption phase; (iii)
      creates an access policy used to encrypt the random key; (iv)
      appended the encrypted key to the content name.  When the consumer
      receives the packet, if its attributes satisfy the hidden policy
      in the name, it can get the random key protected in the name and
      decrypt the data.  The second solution introduces a new trusted
      network entity (i.e., Access Control Provide).  In this case, when
      a publisher generates a content, it also creates an access control
      policy and send it to an Access Control Provider.  This network
      entity stores the access control policy, to which it associates a
      Uniform Resource Identifier (URI).  This URI is sent to the
      publisher and included in the advertisements of the content.
      Then, when a subscriber tries to access a protected content, it

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

      can authenticate himself and request authorization for the
      particular policy to the Access Control Provider through the URI.

6.2.  Name Resolution

   Inter-connecting numerous IoT entities, as well as establishing
   reachability to them, requires a scalable name resolution system
   considering several dynamic factors like mobility of end points,
   service replication, in-network caching, failure or migration [57]
   [69] [70] [91].  The objective is to achieve scalable name resolution
   handling static and dynamic ICN entities with low complexity and
   control overhead.  In particular, the main requirements/challenges of
   a name space (and the corresponding Name Resolution System where
   necessary) are [50] [52]:

   o  Scalability: The first challenge faced by ICN-IoT name resolution
      system is its scalability.  Firstly, the approach has to support
      billions of objects and devices that are connected to the
      Internet, many of which are crossing administrative domain
      boundaries.  Second of all, in addition to objects/devices, the
      name resolution system is also responsible for mapping IoT
      services to their network addresses.  Many of these services are
      based upon contexts, hence dynamically changing, as pointed out in
      [57].  As a result, the name resolution should be able to scale
      gracefully to cover a large number of names/services with wide
      variations (e.g., hierarchical names, flat names, names with
      limited scope, etc.).  Notice that, if hierarchical names are
      used, scalability can be also supported by leveraging the inherent
      aggregation capabilities of the hierarchy.  Advanced techniques
      such as hyperbolic routing [86] may offer further scalability and

   o  Deployability and inter-operability: Graceful deployability and
      interoperability with existing platforms is a must to ensure a
      naming schema to gain success on the market [7].  As a matter of
      fact, besides the need to ensure coexistence between IP-centric
      and ICN-IoT systems, it is required to make different ICN-IoT
      realms, each one based on a different ICN architecture, to inter-

   o  Latency: For real-time or delay sensitive M2M application, the
      name resolution should not affect the overall QoS.  With reference
      to this issue it becomes important to circumvent too centralized
      resolution schema (whatever the naming style, i.e, hierarchical or
      flat) by enforcing in-network cooperation among the different
      entities of the ICN-IoT system, when possible [95].  In addition,
      fast name lookup are necessary to ensure soft/hard real time
      services [106][107][108].  This challenge is especially important

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

      for applications with stringent latency requirements, such as
      health monitoring, emergency handling and smart transportation

   o  Locality and network efficiency: During name resolution the named
      entities closer to the consumer should be easily accessible
      (subject to the application requirements).  This requirement is
      true in general because, whatever the network, if the edges are
      able to satisfy the requests of their consumers, the load of the
      core and content seek time decrease, and the overall system
      scalability is improved.  This facet gains further relevance in
      those domains where an actuation on the environment has to be
      executed, based on the feedbacks of the ICN-IoT system, such as in
      robotics applications, smart grids, and industrial plants [97].

   o  Agility: Some data items could disappear while some other ones are
      created so that the name resolution system should be able to
      effectively take care of these dynamic conditions.  In particular,
      this challenge applies to very dynamic scenarios (e.g., VANETs) in
      which data items can be tightly coupled to nodes that can appear
      and disappear very frequently.

6.3.  Security and Privacy

   Security and privacy is crucial to all the IoT applications
   applications including the use cases discussed in Section 2 and
   subjected to the information context.  To exemplify this, in one
   recent demonstration,it was shown that passive tire pressure sensors
   in cars could be hacked adversely affecting the automotive system
   [74], while at the same time the information can be used by a public
   traffic management system to improve road safety.  The ICN paradigm
   is information-centric as opposed to state-of-the-art host-centric
   Internet.  Besides aspects like naming, content retrieval and caching
   this also has security implications.  ICN advocates the model of
   trust in content rather than a direct trust in network host mode.
   This brings in the concept of Object Security which is contrary to
   session-based security mechanisms such as TLS/DTLS prevalent in the
   current host-centric Internet.  Object Security is based on the idea
   of securing information objects unlike session-based security
   mechanisms which secure the communication channel between a pair of
   nodes for unicast, (or among a set of nodes for multicast/broadcast).
   This reinforces an inherent characteristic of ICN networks i.e. to
   decouple senders and receivers.  Even session based trust association
   can be realized in ICN [83], that offers host-independence allowing
   authentication and authorization to be separated from session
   encryption, allowing multiple end points to meet specific service
   objectives.  In the context of IoT, the Object Security model has
   several concrete advantages.  Many IoT applications have data and

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   services are the main goal and specific communication between two
   devices is secondary.  Therefore, it makes more sense to secure IoT
   objects instead of securing the session between communicating
   endpoints.  Though ICN includes data-centric security features the
   mechanisms have to be generic enough to satisfy multiplicity of
   policy requirements for different applications.  Furthermore security
   and privacy concerns have to be dealt in a scenario-specific manner
   with respect to network function perspective spanning naming, name-
   resolution, routing, caching, and ICN-APIs.  The work by the JOSE WG
   [80] provides solution approaches to address some of these concerns
   for object security for constrained devices and should be considered
   to see what can be applied to an ICN architecture.  In general, we
   feel that security and privacy protection in IoT systems should
   mainly focus on the following aspects: confidentiality, integrity,
   authentication and non-repudiation, and availability.  Even though,
   implementing security and privacy methods in IOT systems faces
   different challenges than in other systems, like IP.  Specifically,
   below we discuss the challenges in the constrained and infrastructure
   part of the network.

   o  In the resource-constrained nodes, energy limitation is the
      biggest challenge.  Moreover, it has to deliver its data over a
      wireless link for a reasonable period of time on a coin cell
      battery.  As a result, traditional security/privacy measures are
      impractical to be implemented in the constrained part.  In this
      case, one possible solution might be utilizing the physical
      wireless signals as security measures [75] [55].

   o  In the infrastructure part, we have several new threats introduced
      by ICN-IoT [85] particularly in architectures employing name
      resolution service [119].  Below we list several possible attacks
      to a name resolution service that is critical to ICN-IoT :

      1.  Each IoT device is given an ICN name.  The name spoofing
          attack is a masquerading threat, where a malicious user A
          claims another user B's name and attempts to associate it with
          A's own network address NA-A, by announcing the mapping (ID-B,
          NA-A).  The consequence of this attack is a denial of service
          as it can cause traffic directed for B to be directed to A's
          network address.

      2.  The stale mapping attack is a message manipulation attack
          involving a malicious name resolution server.  In this attack,
          if a device moves and issues an update, the malicious name
          resolution server can purposely ignore the update and claim it
          still has the most recent mapping.  Perhaps worse, a name
          resolution server can selectively choose which (possibly

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

          stale) mapping to give out during queries.  The result is a
          denial of service.

      3.  The third potential attack, false announcement attack, is an
          information modification attack that results in illegitimate
          resource consumption.  User A, which is in network NA1, claims
          its ID-A binds to a different network address, (ID-A, NA2).
          Thus A can direct its traffic to network NA2, which causes
          NA2's network resources to be consumed.

      4.  The collusion attack is an example of an information
          modification attack in which a malicious user, its network and
          the location where the mapping is stored collude with each
          other.  The objective behind the malicious collusion is to
          allow for a fake mapping involving a false network address to
          pass the verification and become stored in the storage place.

      5.  An intruder may insert fake/false sensor data into the
          network.  The consequence might be an increase in delay and
          performance degradation for network services and applications.

   o  As far as the IoT application server is concerned, data privacy is
      one of the biggest concerns.  IoT data is collected and stored on
      such servers, which usually run learning algorithms to extract
      patterns from such data.  In this case, it is important to adopt a
      framework that enables privacy-preserving learning techniques.
      The framework defines how data is collected, modified (to satisfy
      the privacy requirement), and transmitted to application

6.4.  Caching

   In-network caching helps bring data closer to consumers, but its
   usage differs in constrained and infrastructure part of the IoT

   Caching in ICN-IoT faces several challenges:

   o  An important challenge is to determine which nodes on the routing
      path should cache the data.  According to [52], caching the data
      on a subset of nodes can achieve a better gain than caching on
      every en-route routers.  In particular, the authors propose a
      "selective caching" scheme to locate those routers with better hit
      probabilities to cache data.  According to [53], selecting a
      random router to cache data is as good as caching the content
      everywhere.  In [88], the authors suggest that edge caching
      provides most of the benefits of in-network caching typically
      discussed in NDN, with simpler deployment.  However, it and other

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

      papers consider workloads that are analogous to today's CDNs, not
      the IoT applications considered here.  Further work is likely
      required to understand the appropriate caching approach for IoT

   o  Another challenge in ICN-IoT caching is what to cache for IoT
      applications.  In many IoT applications, customers often access a
      stream of sensor data, and as a result, caching a particular
      sensor data item for longer time may not be beneficial.  In [90],
      proposed a caching scheme that ensures that older instances of the
      same sensor stream were first to be evicted from the cache when
      needed.  In [55], the authors suggest to cache IoT services on
      intermediate routers, and in [57], the authors suggest to cache
      control information such as pub/sub lists on intermediate nodes.
      In addition, it is yet unclear what caching means in the context
      of actuation in an IoT system.  For example, it could mean caching
      the result of a previous actuation request (using other ICN
      mechanisms to suppress repeated actuation requests within a given
      time period), or have little meaning at all if actuation uses
      authenticated requests as in [89].

   o  Another challenge is that the efficiency of distributed caching
      may be application dependent.  When content popularity is
      heterogeneous, some content is often requested repeatedly.  In
      that case, the network can benefit from caching.  Another case
      where caching would be beneficial is when devices with low duty
      cycle are present in the network and when access to the cloud
      infrastructure is limited.  In [90], it is also shown that there
      are benefits to caching in the network when edge links are lossy,
      in particular if losses occur close to the content producer, as is
      common in wireless IoT networks.  However, using distributed
      caching mechanisms in the network is not useful when each object
      is only requested at most once, as a cache hit can only occur for
      the second request and later.  It may also be less beneficial to
      have caches distributed throughout ICN nodes in cases when there
      are overlays of distributed repositories, e.g., a cloud or a
      Content Distribution Network (CDN), from which all clients can
      retrieve the data.  Using ICN to retrieve data from such services
      may add some efficiency, but in case of dense occurrence of
      overlay CDN servers the additional benefit of caching in ICN nodes
      would be lower.  Another example is when the name refers to an
      object with variable content/state.  For example, when the last
      value for a sensor reading is requested or desired, the returned
      data should change every time the sensor reading is updated.  In
      that case, ICN caching may increase the risk that cache
      inconsistencies result in old data being returned.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

6.5.  Storage

   Storage is useful for IoT systems both at longer and small time

   Long terms storage can be distributed at vantage points including
   both the edge and the main IoT service aggregation points such as in
   the data centers, the difference being in the size of data,
   processing intelligence and heterogeneity of information that has to
   be dealt at the two points.  The purpose of long terms storage at the
   edge is to analyze, filter, aggregate and re-publish data for
   consumption by either by the parent service components or directly by
   the consumers.  The aggregation service points, republish data to be
   presented as part of the global pub/sub service to interested
   consuming parties.  Long term storage for IoT data also serves the
   purpose of data backup and replication.  Specifically, we face
   several issues here.  Firstly, we need to decide how many replicas we
   should have for each stream of IoT data, and where we should store
   these replicas.  Given that many IoT applications consume data
   locally, storage locations should be kept near to data sources as
   well.  Since IoT data are mostly appended to the end of a stream,
   instead of being updated, managing multiple replicas becomes easier.
   Secondly, we need to adopt a mechanism that can efficiently route
   traffic to the nearest data replica.  ICN provides several solutions
   to this problem.  For example, global name resolution service (GNRS)
   can keep track of each replica's location [56].

   Short-term in-network storage (here storage refers to temporary
   buffer when an outgoing link is not available) helps improve
   communication reliability, especially when network links are
   unreliable, such as wireless links.  ICN-IoT could adopt a
   generalized storage-aware routing algorithm to support delay and
   disruption tolerance in the routing layer.  Each router employs in-
   network storage that facilitates store vs. forward decisions in
   response to varying link quality and disconnections [111].  These
   decisions are based on both short-term and long-term path quality
   metrics.  In addition, packets along paths that become disconnected
   are handled by a disruption tolerant networking (DTN) mode of the
   protocol with delayed delivery and replication features.  In
   particular, each router maintains two types of topology information:
   (i) An intra-partition graph is formed by collecting flooded link
   state advertisements which carry fine-grained, time-sensitive
   information about the intra-network links; (ii) A DTN graph is
   maintained via epidemically disseminated link-state advertisements
   which carry connection probabilities between all nodes in the
   network.  In-network storage faces the following challenges: (1) when
   to store and how long to store the data, and (2) the next step after
   the short-term storage.  In [90] the authors also shows that it is

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   beneficial to store data even for shorter periods of time (and even
   if only a single requester exist) if the network is lossy such that
   retransmissions and error recovery can be done locally instead of

6.6.  Routing and Forwarding

   ICN-IoT supports both device-to-device (D2D) communication and
   device-to-infrastructure (D2I) communication.  Some D2D
   communications are within a single IoT domain, while others might
   cross IoT domains involving data forwarding within the source IoT
   domain, in the infrastructure network, and within the destination IoT
   domain.  D2I communications involve data forwarding within the source
   IoT domain and in the infrastructure network.  Data forwarding within
   an IoT domain can adopt sensor network popular routing protocols such
   as RPL [81], AODV[82], etc.  The main challenge it faces is the
   resource constraint of the IoT nodes.  In order to address this
   challenge, we could adopt a light-weight, much shorter ICN name for
   each communicating party within an IoT domain (see Section 6.12 for
   details).  Before we leave the IoT domain, the gateway node will
   translate the party's short ICN name to its original ICN name.  Data
   forwarding in the ICN infrastructure part can adopt either direct
   name-based routing or indirect routing using a name resolution
   service (NRS).

   o  In direct name-based routing, packets are forwarded by the name of
      the data [91][61][71] or the name of the destination node [72].
      Here, the main challenge is to keep the ICN router state required
      to route/forward data low.  This challenge becomes more serious
      when a flat naming scheme is used due to the lack of aggregation

   o  In indirect routing, packets are forwarded based upon the locater
      of the destination node, and the locater is obtained through the
      name resolution service.  In particular, the name-locater binding
      can be done either before routing (i.e., static binding) or during
      routing (i.e., dynamic binding).  For static binding, the router
      state is the same as that in traditional routers, and the main
      challenge is the need to have fast name resolution, especially
      when the IoT nodes are mobile.  For dynamic binding, ICN routers
      need to main a name-based routing table, hence the challenge of
      keeping the state information low.  At the same time, the need of
      fast name resolution is also critical.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 31]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

6.7.  Mobility Management

   Considering the diversity of IoT applications mobility ranges from
   tracking sensor data from mobile human beings to large fleets of
   diverse mobile elements such as drones, vehicles, trucks, trains
   associated with a transport infrastructure.  These mobility could be
   over heterogeneous access infrastructure ranging from short range
   802.15.4 to cellular radios.  Further, handling information delivery
   in ad hoc setting involving vehicles, road side units (RSU) and the
   corresponding infrastructure based services offers more challenges.
   ICN architectures has generally been shown to handle consumer and
   producer mobility [59], and even suitability to V2V scenarios [60].
   Networking tools to handle mobility varies with application
   requirements, which varies from being tolerant to packet losses and
   latency to those that are mission critical with stringent requirement
   on both these QoS metrics.

   Related to this, the challenge is to quantify the cost associated
   with mobility management both in the control and forwarding plane, to
   handle both static binding versus dynamic binding (dynamic binding
   here refers to enabling seamless mobility) of named resources to its
   location when either or both consumer and producer is mobile.

   During a network transaction, either the data producer or the
   consumer may move away and thus we need to handle the mobility to
   avoid information loss.  ICN may differentiate mobility of a data
   consumer from that of a producer:

   o  When a consumer moves to a new location after sending out the
      request for Data, the Data may traverse to the previous point of
      attachment (PoA) but leaving copies of it through its previous
      path, which can be retrieved by the consumer by retransmitting its
      request, a technique used by direct routing approach.  Indirect
      routing approach doesn't differentiate between consumer and
      producer mobility [91], as it only requires an update to the name
      resolution system, which can update the routers to rebind the
      named resource to its new location, while using late-binding to
      route the packet from the previous PoA to the new one.

   o  If the data producer itself has moved, the challenge is to control
      the control overhead while searching for a new data producer (or
      for the same data producer in its new position) [58].  To this
      end, flooding techniques could be used rediscover the producer, or
      the direct routing techniques can be enhanced with late-binding
      feature to enable seamless mobility [59].

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 32]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

6.8.  Contextual Communication

   Contextualization through metadata in ICN control or application
   payload allows IoT applications to adapt to different environments.
   This enables intelligent networks which are self-configurable and
   enable intelligent networking among consumers and producers [55].
   For example, let us look at the following smart transportation
   scenario: "James walks on NYC streets and wants to find an empty cab
   closest to his location."  In this example, the context is the
   relative locations of James and taxi drivers.  A context service, as
   an IoT middleware, processes the contextual information and bridges
   the gap between raw sensor information and application requirements.
   Alternatively, naming conventions could be used to allow applications
   to request content in namespaces related to their local context
   without requiring a specific service, such as /local/geo/
   mgrs/4QFJ/123/678 to retrieve objects published in the 100m grid area
   4QFJ 123 678 of the military grid reference system (MGRS).  In both
   cases, trust providers may emerge that can vouch for an application's
   local knowledge.

   However, extracting contextual information on a real-time basis is
   very challenging:

   o  We need to have a fast context resolution service through which
      the involved IoT devices can continuously update its contextual
      information to the application (e.g., each taxi's location and
      Jame's information in the above example).  Or, in the namespace
      driven approach, mechanisms for continuous nearest neighbor
      queries in the namespace need to be developed.

   o  The difficulty of this challenge grows rapidly when the number of
      devices involved in a context as well as the number of contexts

6.9.  In-network Computing

   In-network computing enables ICN routers to host heterogeneous
   services catering to various network functions and applications
   needs.  Contextual services for IoT networks require in-network
   computing, in which each sensor node or ICN router implements context
   reasoning [55].  Another major purpose of in-network computing is to
   filter and cleanse sensed data in IoT applications, that is critical
   as the data is noisy as is [73].

   Named Function Networking [113] describes an extension of the ICN
   concept to named functions processed in the network, which could be
   used to generate data flow processing applications well-suited to,
   for example, time series data processing in IoT sensing applications.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 33]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   Related to this, is the need to support efficient function naming.
   Functions, input parameters, and the output result could be
   encapsulated in the packet header, the packet body, or mixture of the
   two (e.g. [31]).  If functions are encapsulated in packet headers,
   the naming scheme affects how a computation task is routed in the
   network, which IoT devices are involved in the computation task (e.g.
   [54]), and how a name is decomposed into smaller computation tasks
   and deployed in the network for a better performance.

   Another is challenge is related to support computing-aware routing.
   Normal routing is for forwarding requests to the nearest source or
   cache and return the data to the requester, whereas the routing for
   in-network computation has a different purpose.  If the computation
   task is for aggregating sensed data, the routing strategy is to route
   the data to achieve a better aggregation performance [51].

   In-network computing also includes synchronization challenges.  Some
   computation tasks may need synchronizations between sub-tasks or IoT
   devices, e.g. a device may not send data as soon as it is available
   because waiting for data from the neighbours may lead to a better
   aggregation result; some devices may choose to sleep to save energy
   while waiting for the results from the neighbours; while aggregating
   the computation results along the path, the intermediate IoT devices
   may need to choose the results generated within a certain time

6.10.  Self-Orgnization

   General IoT deployments involves heterogeneous IoT systems consisting
   of embedded systems, aggregators and service gateways in a IoT
   domain.  To scale IoT deployments to large scale, scope-based self-
   organization is required.  This relates to IoT system middleware
   functions [118] which include device bootstrapping and discovery,
   assigning local/global names to device and/or content, security and
   trust management functions towards device authentication and data
   privacy.  ICN based on-boarding protocols have been studied [96] and
   has shown to offer significant savings compared to existing
   approaches.  These challenges span both the constrained devices as
   well as interaction with the aggregators and the service gateways
   which may have to contact external services like authentication
   servers to on-board devices.  A critical performance optimization
   metric of these functions while operating at scale is to have low
   control and data overhead in order to maximize energy efficiency.
   Further, in the infrastructure part scalable name-based resolution
   mechanisms, pub/sub services, storage and caching, and in-network
   computing techniques should be studied to meet the scope-based
   content dissemination needs of an ICN-IoT system.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 34]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

6.11.  Communications Reliability

   ICN offers many ingredients for reliable communication such as multi-
   home interest anycast over heterogeneous interfaces, caching, and
   forwarding intelligence for multi-path routing leveraging state-
   based forwarding in protocols like CCN/NDN.  However these features
   have not been analyzed from the QoS perspective when heterogeneous
   traffic patterns are mixed in a router, in general QoS for ICN is an
   open area of research [121].  In-network reliability comes at the
   cost of a complex network layer; hence the research challenges here
   is to build redundancy and reliability in the network layer to handle
   a wide range of disruption scenarios such as congestion, short or
   long term disconnection, or last mile wireless impairments.  Also an
   ICN network should allow features such as opportunistic store and
   forward mechanism to be enabled only at certain points in the
   network, as these mechanisms also entail overheads in the control and
   forwarding plane overhead which will adversely affect application
   throughput, Please see the discussion on in-network storage
   (Section 6.5) for more details .

6.12.  Resource Constraints and Heterogeneity

   An IoT architecture should take into consideration resource
   constraints of (often) embedded IoT nodes.  Having globally unique
   IDs is a key feature in ICN, which may consist of tens of bytes.
   Each device would have a persistent and unique ID no matter when and
   where it moves.  It is also important for ICN-IoT to keep this
   feature.  However, always carrying the long ID in the packet header
   may not be always feasible over a low-rate layer-2 protocol such as
   802.15.4.  To solve this issue, ICN can operate using lighter-weight
   packet header and a much shorter locally unique ID (LUID in short).
   In this way, we map a device's long global ID to its short LUID when
   we reach the local area IoT domain.  To cope with collisions that may
   occur in this mapping process, we let each domain have its own global
   ID to LUID mapping which is managed by a gateway deployed at the edge
   of the domain.  Different from NAT and other existing domain-based or
   gateway-based solutions, ICN-IoT does not change the identity the
   application uses.  The applications, either on constrained IoT
   devices or on the infrastructure nodes, still use the long global IDs
   to identify each other, while the network performs translation which
   is transparent to these applications.  An IoT node carries its global
   ID no matter where it moves, even when it is relocated to another
   local IoT domain and is assigned with a new LUID.  This ensures the
   global reach-ability and mobility handling yet still considers
   resource constraints of embedded devices.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 35]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   In addition, the optimizations for other components of the ICN-IoT
   system (described in earlier subsections) can lead to optimized
   energy efficiency as well.

7.  Differences from T2TRG

   T2TRG [9] is a IoT research group under IRTF focusing on research
   challenges of realizing IoT solutions considering IP as the narrow
   waist.  IP-IoT has been a research topic over a decade and with
   active industry solutions, hence this group provides an venue to
   study advanced issues related to IP-IoT security, provisioning,
   configuration and inter-operability considering various heterogeneous
   application environments.  ICN-IoT is a recent research effort, where
   the objective to exploit ICN feature of name based routing and
   security, caching, multicasting, mobility etc in an end-to-end manner
   to enable IoT services spanning both ad hoc, infrastructure and
   hybrid scenarios.  More detailed comparison of IP-IoT versus ICN-IoT
   is given in Section 4.

8.  Security Considerations

   ICN puts security in the forefront of its design which ICN-IoT can
   leverage to build applications with varying security requirements,
   which has been discussed quite elaborately in this draft.  This is an
   informational draft and doesn't create new considerations beyond what
   has been discussed.

9.  Conclusions

   This draft offers a comprehensive view of the benefits and design
   challenges of using ICN to deliver IoT services, not only because of
   its suitability for constraint networks but also towards ad hoc and
   infrastructure environments.  The draft begins by motivating the need
   for ICN-IoT by considering popular IoT scenarios and then delves into
   understanding the IoT requirements from application and networking
   perspective.  We then discuss why current approach of application
   layer unified IoT solutions based on IP falls short of meeting these
   requirements, and how ICN architecture is a more suitable towards
   this.  We then elaborate on the design challenges in realizing an
   ICN-IoT architecture at scale and one that offers reliability,
   security, energy efficiency, mobility, self-organization among others
   to accommodate varying IoT service needs.

10.  Acknowledgements

   We thank all the contributors, reviewers and the valuable comments
   offered by the chairs to improve this draft.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 36]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

11.  Informative References

   [1]        Cisco System Inc., CISCO., "Cisco visual networking index:
              Global mobile data traffic forecast update.", 2016-2021.

   [2]        Shafig, M., Ji, L., Liu, A., Pang, J., and J.  Wang, "A
              first look at cellular machine-to-machine traffic: large
              scale measurement and characterization.", Proceedings of
              the ACM Sigmetrics , 2012.

   [3]        The European Telecommunications Standards Institute,
              ETSI., "http://www.etsi.org/.", 1988.

   [4]        Global Intiative for M2M Standardization, oneM2M.,
              "http://www.onem2m.org/.", 2012.

   [5]        Constrained RESTful Environments, CoRE.,
              "https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/core/charter/.", 2013.

   [6]        Ghodsi, A., Shenker, S., Koponen, T., Singla, A.,
              Raghavan, B., and J. Wilcox, "Information-Centric
              Networking: Seeing the Forest of the Trees.", Hot Topics
              in Networking , 2011.

   [7]        Dong, L., Zhang, Y., and D. Raychaudhuri, "Enhance Content
              Broadcast Efficiency in Routers with Integrated Caching.",
              Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computers and
              Communications (ISCC) , 2011.

   [8]        NSF FIA project, MobilityFirst.,
              "http://mobilityfirst.winlab.rutgers.edu/", 2010.

   [9]        Thing-to-Thing Research Group, T2TRG.,
              "https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/t2trg/about/", 2017.

   [10]       OPC Foundation, OPC., "https://opcfoundation.org/", 2017.

   [11]       Kim, B., Lee, S., Lee, Y., Hwang, I., and Y. Rhee,
              "Mobiiscape: Middleware Support for Scalable Mobility
              Pattern Monitoring of Moving Objects in a Large-Scale
              City.", Journal of Systems and Software, Elsevier, 2011.

   [12]       Dietrich, D., Bruckne, D., Zucker, G., and P. Palensky,
              "Communication and Computation in Buildings: A Short
              Introduction and Overview", IEEE Transactions on
              Industrial Electronics, 2010.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 37]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   [13]       Keith, K., Falco, F., and K. Scarfone, "Guide to
              Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security", NIST,
              Technical Report 800-82 Revision 1, 2013.

   [14]       Darianian, M. and Martin. Michael, "Smart home mobile
              RFID-based Internet-of-Things systems and services.",
              IEEE, ICACTE, 2008.

   [15]       Zhu, Q., Wang, R., Chen, Q., Chen, Y., and W. Qin, "IOT
              Gateway: Bridging Wireless Sensor Networks into Internet
              of Things", IEEE/IFIP, EUC, 2010.

   [16]       Biswas, T., Chakrabort, A., Ravindran, R., Zhang, X., and
              G. Wang, "Contextualized information-centric home
              network", ACM, Sigcomm, 2013.

   [17]       Huang, R., Zhang, J., Hu, Y., and J. Yang, "Smart Campus:
              The Developing Trends of Digital Campus", 2012.

   [18]       Yan, Y., Qian, Y., Hu, Y., and J. Yang, "A Survey on Smart
              Grid Communication Infrastructures: Motivations,
              Requirements and Challenges", IEEE Communications Survey
              and Tutorials, 2013.

   [19]       Chai, W., Katsaros, K., Strobbe, M., and P. Romano,
              "Enabling Smart Grid Applications with ICN", ICN Sigcomm,

   [20]       Katsaros, K., Chai, W., Wang, N., and G. Pavlou,
              "Information-centric Networking for Machine-to-Machine
              Data Delivery: A Case Study in Smart Grid Applications",
              IEEE Network, 2014.

   [21]       Mael, A., Maheo, Y., and F. Raimbault, "CoAP over BP for a
              delay-tolerant internet of things", Future Internet of
              Things and Cloud (FiCloud), IEEE, 2015.

   [22]       Patrice, R. and H. Rivano, "Tests Scenario on DTN for IOT
              III Urbanet collaboration", Dissertation, INRIA, 2015.

   [23]       Kevin, F., "Comparing Information-Centric and Delay-
              Tolerant Networking", Local Computer Networks (LCN), 2012
              IEEE 37th Conference on. IEEE, 2012..

   [24]       Miao, Y. and Y. Bu, "Research on the Architecture and Key
              Technology of Internet of Things (loT) Applied on Smart
              Grid", IEEE, ICAEE, 2010.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 38]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   [25]       Castro, M. and A. Jara, "An analysis of M2M platforms:
              challenges and opportunities for the Internet of Things",
              IMIS, 2012.

   [26]       Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., and S. Marusic, "Internet of Things
              (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future
              directions", Future Generation Computer Systems, 2013.

   [27]       Vandikas, K. and V. Tsiatsis, "Performance Evaluation of
              an IoT Platform. In Next Generation Mobile Apps, Services
              and Technologies(NGMAST)", Next Generation Mobile Apps,
              Services and Technologies (NGMAST), 2014.

   [28]       Zhang, Y., Yu, R., Nekovee, M., Liu, Y., Xie, S., and S.
              Gjessing, "Cognitive Machine-to-Machine Communications:
              Visions and Potentials for the Smart Grid", IEEE, Network,

   [29]       Zhou, H., Liu, B., and D. Wang, "Design and Research of
              Urban Intelligent Transportation System Based on the
              Internet of Things", Springer Link, 2012.

   [30]       Alessandrelli, D., Petracca, M., and P. Pagano, "T-Res:
              enabling reconfigurable in-network processing in IoT-based
              WSNs.", International Conference on Distributed Computing
              in Sensor Systems (DCOSS) , 2013.

   [31]       Kovatsch, M., Mayer, S., and B. Ostermaier, "Moving
              application logic from the firmware to the Cloud: towards
              the thin server architecture for the internet of things.",
              in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Innovative Mobile and Internet
              Services in Ubiquitous Computing (IMIS) , 2012.

   [32]       Zhang, M., Yu, T., and G. Zhai, "Smart Transport System
              Based on the Internet of Things", Applied Mechanics and
              Materials, 2012.

   [33]       Zhang, A., Yu, R., Nekovee, M., and S. Xie, "The Internet
              of Things for Ambient Assisted Living", IEEE, ITNG, 2010.

   [34]       Savola, R., Abie, H., and M. Sihvonen, "Towards metrics-
              driven adaptive security management in E-health IoT
              applications.", ACM, BodyNets, 2012.

   [35]       Jacobson, V., Smetters, D., Plass, M., Stewart, P.,
              Thornton, J., and R. Braynard, "VoCCN: Voice-over Content-
              Centric Networks", ACM, ReArch, 2009.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 39]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   [36]       Piro, G., Cianci, I., Grieco, L., Boggia, G., and P.
              Camarda, "Information Centric Services in Smart Cities",
              ACM, Journal of Systems and Software, 2014.

   [37]       Gaur, A., Scotney, B., Parr, G., and S. McClean, "Smart
              City Architecture and its Applications Based on IoT -
              Smart City Architecture and its Applications Based on
              IoT", Procedia Computer Science, Volume 52, 2015, Pages

   [38]       Herrera-Quintero, L., Banse, K., Vega-Alfonso, J., and A.
              Venegas-Sanchez, "Smart ITS sensor for the transportation
              planning using the IoT and Bigdata approaches to produce
              ITS cloud services", 8th Euro American Conference on
              Telematics and Information Systems (EATIS), Cartagena,
              2016, pp. 1-7.

   [39]       Melis, A., Pardini, M., Sartori, L., and F. Callegati,
              "Public Transportation, IoT, Trust and Urban Habits",
              Internet Science: Third International Conference, INSCI
              2016, Florence, Italy, September 12-14, 2016, Proceedings.

   [40]       Tonneau, A., Mitton, N., and J. Vandaele, "A Survey on
              (mobile) Wireless Sensor Network Experimentation
              Testbeds", 2014 IEEE International Conference on
              Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems, Marina Del Rey,
              CA, 2014, pp. 263-268.

   [41]       Zhilin, Y., "Mobile phone location determination and its
              impact on intelligent transportation systems", IEEE
              Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol.
              1, no. 1, pp. 55-64, Mar 2000.

   [42]       Papadimitratos, P., La Fortelle, A., Evenssen, K.,
              Brignolo, R., and S. Cosenza, "Vehicular communication
              systems: Enabling technologies, applications, and future
              outlook on intelligent transportation", IEEE
              Communications Magazine, vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 84-95,
              November 2009.

   [43]       Zhang, Yu., Afanasyev, A., Burke, J., and L. Zhang, "A
              survey of mobility support in named data networking",
              Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), 2016
              IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2016.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 40]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   [44]       Xylomenos, G., Ververidis, C., Siris, V., and N. Fotiou et
              al, "A survey of information-centric networking research",
              IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, Volume: 16,
              Issue: 2, Second Quarter 2014 .

   [45]       Mavromoustakis, C., Mastorakis, G., and J. Batalla,
              "Internet of Things (IoT) in 5G Mobile Technologies",

   [46]       Firner, S., Medhekar, S., and Y. Zhang, "PIP Tags:
              Hardware Design and Power Optimization", in Proceedings of
              HotEmNets, 2008.

   [47]       Masek, P., Masek, J., Frantik, P., and R. Fujdiak, "A
              Harmonized Perspective on Transportation Management in
              Smart Cities: The Novel IoT-Driven Environment for Road
              Traffic Modeling", Sensors, Volume 16, Issue 11, 2016.

   [48]       Abreu, D., Velasquez, K., Curado, M., and E. Monteiro, "A
              resilient Internet of Things architecture for smart
              cities", Annals of Telecommunications, Volume 72, Issue 1,
              Pages 19-30, 2017.

   [49]       Ravindran, R., Biswas, T., Zhang, X., Chakrabort, A., and
              G. Wang, "Information-centric Networking based Homenet",
              IEEE/IFIP, 2013.

   [50]       Dannewitz, C., D' Ambrosio, M., and V. Vercellone,
              "Hierarchical DHT-based name resolution for information-
              centric networks", 2013.

   [51]       Fasoloy, E., Rossiy, M., and M. Zorziy, "In-network
              Aggregation Techniques for Wireless Sensor Networks: A
              Survey", IEEE Wireless Communications, 2007.

   [52]       Chai, W., He, D., and I. Psaras, "Cache "less for more" in
              information-centric networks", ACM, IFIP, 2012.

   [53]       Eum, S., Nakauchi, K., Murata, M., Shoji, Yozo., and N.
              Nishinaga, "Catt: potential based routing with content
              caching for icn", IEEE Communication Magazine, 2012.

   [54]       Drira, W. and F. Filali, "Catt: An NDN Query Mechanism for
              Efficient V2X Data Collection", Eleventh Annual IEEE
              International Conference on Sensing, Communication, and
              Networking Workshops (SECON Workshops), 2014.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 41]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   [55]       Eum, S., Shvartzshnaider, Y., Francisco, J., Martini, R.,
              and D. Raychaudhuri, "Enabling internet-of-things services
              in the mobilityfirst future internet architecture", IEEE,
              WoWMoM, 2012.

   [56]       Raychaudhuri, D., Nagaraj, K., and A. Venkatramani,
              "Mobilityfirst: a robust and trustworthy mobility-centric
              architecture for the future internet.", ACM SIGMOBILE
              Mobile Computing and Communications Review 16.3 (2012):

   [57]       Sun, Y., Qiao, X., Cheng, B., and J. Chen, "A low-delay,
              lightweight publish/subscribe architecture for delay-
              sensitive IOT services", IEEE, ICWS, 2013.

   [58]       Azgin, A., Ravindran, R., and GQ. Wang, "Mobility study
              for Named Data Networking in wireless access networks",
              IEEE, ICC, 2014.

   [59]       Azgin, A., Ravindran, R., Chakraborti, A., and GQ. Wang,
              "Seamless Producer Mobility as a Service in Information
              Centric Networks", ACM ICN Sigcomm, IC5G Workshop, 2016.

   [60]       Wang, L., Wakikawa, R., Kuntz, R., and R. Vuyyuru, "Data
              Naming in Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications", IEEE,
              Infocm, Nomen Workshop, 2012.

   [61]       Baccelli, E., Mehlis, C., Hahm, O., Schmidt, T., and M.
              Wahlisch, "Information Centric Networking in the
              IoT:Experiments with NDN in the Wild", ACM, ICN Siggcomm,

   [62]       Simona, C. and M. Mongiello, "Pushing the role of
              information in ICN", Telecommunications (ICT), 2016 23rd
              International Conference on. IEEE, 2016..

   [63]       Li, B., Huang, D., Wang, Z., and Y. Zhu, "Attribute-based
              Access Control for ICN Naming Scheme", IEEE Transactions
              on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol.PP, no.99,

   [64]       Polyzos, G. and N. Fotiou, "Building a reliable Internet
              of Things using Information-Centric Networking", Journal
              of Reliable Intelligent Environments, vol.1, no.1, 2015..

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 42]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   [65]       Pandurang, K., Xu, W., Trappe, W., and Y. Zhang, "Temporal
              privacy in wireless sensor networks: Theory and practice",
              ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks (TOSN) 5, no. 4
              (2009): 28..

   [66]       Trossen, D., Sarela, M., and K. Sollins, "Arguments for an
              information-centric internetworking architecture.", ACM
              SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 40.2 (2010): 26-33.

   [67]       Zhang, G., Li, Y., and T. Lin, "Caching in information
              centric networking: A survey.", Computer Networks 57.16
              (2013): 3128-3141.

   [68]       Gronbaek, I., "Architecture for the Internet of Things
              (IoT): API and interconnect", IEEE, SENSORCOMM, 2008.

   [69]       Tian, Y., Liu, Y., Yan, Z., Wu, S., and H. Li, "RNS-A
              Public Resource Name Service Platform for the Internet of
              Things", IEEE, GreenCom, 2012.

   [70]       Roussos, G. and P. Chartier, "Scalable id/locator
              resolution for the iot", IEEE, iThings,CPSCom, 2011.

   [71]       Amadeo, M. and C. Campolo, "Potential of information-
              centric wireless sensor and actuator networking", IEEE,
              ComManTel, 2013.

   [72]       Nelson, S., Bhanage, G., and D. Raychaudhuri, "GSTAR:
              generalized storage-aware routing for mobilityfirst in the
              future mobile internet", ACM, MobiArch, 2011.

   [73]       Trappe, W., Zhang, Y., and B. Nath, "MIAMI: methods and
              infrastructure for the assurance of measurement
              information", ACM, DMSN, 2005.

   [74]       Rouf, I., Mustafa, H., Taylor, T., Oh, S., Xu, W.,
              Gruteser, M., Trappe, W., and I. Seskar, "Security and
              privacy vulnerabilities of in-car wireless networks: A
              tire pressure monitoring system case study", USENIX, 2010.

   [75]       Liu, R. and W. Trappe, "Securing Wireless Communications
              at the Physical Layer", Springer, 2010.

   [76]       Xiao, L., Greenstein, L., Mandayam, N., and W. Trappe,
              "Using the physical layer for wireless authentication in
              time-variant channels", IEEE Transactions on Wireless
              Communications, 2008.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 43]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   [77]       Sun, S., Lannom, L., and B. Boesch, "Handle system
              overview", IETF, RFC3650, 2003.

   [78]       Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,

   [79]       Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,

   [80]       Barnes, R., "Use Cases and Requirements for JSON Object
              Signing and Encryption (JOSE)", RFC 7165,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7165, April 2014,

   [81]       Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
              Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
              JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
              Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,

   [82]       Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., and S. Das, "Ad hoc On-
              Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing", RFC 3561,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3561, July 2003,

   [83]       marc.mosko@parc.com, m., Uzun, E., and C. Wood, "CCNx Key
              Exchange Protocol Version 1.0", draft-wood-icnrg-
              ccnxkeyexchange-01 (work in progress), October 2016.

   [84]       Sun, S., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message
              Syntax and Routing", 2014.

   [85]       Liu, X., Trappe, W., and Y. Zhang, "Secure Name Resolution
              for Identifier-to-Locator Mappings in the Global
              Internet", IEEE, ICCCN, 2013.

   [86]       Boguna, M., Fragkiskos, P., and K. Dmitri, "Sustaining the
              internet with hyperbolic mapping", Nature Communications,

   [87]       Shang, W., "Securing building management systems using
              named data networking", IEEE Network 2014.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 44]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   [88]       Fayazbakhsh, S. and et. et al, "Less pain, most of the
              gain: Incrementally deployable icn", ACM, Siggcomm, 2013.

   [89]       Burke, J. and et. et al, "Securing instrumented
              environments over Content-Centric Networking: the case of
              lighting control", INFOCOM, Computer Communications
              Workshop, 2013.

   [90]       Rao, A., Schelen, O., and A. Lindgren, "Performance
              Implications for IoT over Information Centric Networks",
              Performance Implications for IoT over Information Centric
              Networks, ACM CHANTS 2016.

   [91]       Li, S., Zhang, Y., Dipankar, R., and R. Ravindran, "A
              comparative study of MobilityFirst and NDN based ICN-IoT
              architectures", IEEE, QShine, 2014.

   [92]       Chen, J., Li, S., Yu, H., Zhang, Y., and R. Ravindran,
              "Exploiting icn for realizing service-oriented
              communication in iot", IEEE, Communication Magazine, 2016.

   [93]       Quevedo, J., Corujo, D., and R. Aguiar, "A Case for ICN
              usage in IoT environments", Global Communications
              Conference GLOBECOM, IEEE, Dec 2014, Pages 2770-2775.

   [94]       Lindgren, A., Ben Abdesslem, F., Ahlgren, B., and O.
              Schelen, "Design Choices for the IoT in Information-
              Centric Networks", IEEE Annual Consumer Communications and
              Networking Conference (CCNC) 2016.

   [95]       Grieco, L., Alaya, M., and K. Drira, "Architecting
              Information Centric ETSI-M2M systems", IEEE, Pervasive and
              Computer Communications Workshop (PERCOM), 2014.

   [96]       Compagno, A., Conti, M., and R. Dorms, "OnboardICNg: a
              Secure Protocol for On-boarding IoT Devices in ICN", ICN,
              Sigcomm, 2016.

   [97]       Grieco, L., Rizzo, A., Colucci, R., Sicari, S., Piro, G.,
              Di Paola, D., and G. Boggia, "IoT-aided robotics
              applications: technological implications, target domains
              and open issues", Elsevier Computer Communications, Volume
              54, 1 December, 2014.

   [98]       InterDigital, WhitePaper., "Standardized M2M Software
              Development Platform", 2011.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 45]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   [99]       Boswarthick, D., "M2M Communications: A Systems Approach",

   [100]      Swetina, J., Lu, G., Jacobs, P., Ennesser, F., and J.
              Song, "Toward a standardized common M2M service layer
              platform: Introduction to oneM2M", IEEE Wireless
              Communications, Volume 21, Number 3, June 2014.

   [101]      Wang, L., Wang, Z., and R. Yang, "Intelligent Multiagent
              Control System for Energy and Comfort Management in Smart
              and Sustainable Buildings", IEEE Transactions on Smart
              Grid, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 605-617, June 2012..

   [102]      Lawrence, T., Boudreau, M., and L. Helsen, "Ten questions
              concerning integrating smart buildings into the smart
              grid, Building and Environment", Building and Environment,
              Volume 108, 1 November 2016, Pages 273-283..

   [103]      Hassan, A. and D. Kim, "Named data networking-based smart
              home", ICT Express 2.3 (2016): 130-134..

   [104]      Burke, J., Horn, A., and A. Marianantoni, "Authenticated
              lighting control using named data networking", UCLA, NDN
              Technical Report NDN-0011 (2012)..

   [105]      Afanasyev, A., "Packet fragmentation in ndn: Why ndn uses
              hop-by-hop fragmentation.", UCLA, NDN Technical Report
              NDN-0032 (2015)..

   [106]      Quan, Wei., Xu, C., Guan, J., Zhang, H., and L. Grieco,
              "Scalable Name Lookup with Adaptive Prefix Bloom Filter
              for Named Data Networking", IEEE Communications Letters,

   [107]      Wang, Yi., Pan, T., Mi, Z., Dai, H., Guo, X., Zhang, T.,
              Liu, B., and Q. Dong, "NameFilter: Achieving fast name
              lookup with low memory cost via applying two-stage Bloom
              filters", INFOCOM, 2013.

   [108]      So, W., Narayanan, A., Oran, D., and Y. Wang, "Toward fast
              NDN software forwarding lookup engine based on Hash
              tables", ACM, ANCS, 2012.

   [109]      Amadeo, M., Campolo, C., Iera, A., and A. Molinaro, "Named
              data networking for IoT: An architectural perspective",
              IEEE, EuCNC, 2014.

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 46]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   [110]      Amadeo, M., Campolo, C., Iera, A., and A. Molinaro,
              "Information centric networking in iot scenarios: The case
              of a smart home", IEEE ICC, June 2015.

   [111]      Somani, N., Chanda, A., Nelson, S., and D. Raychaudhuri,
              "Storage- Aware Routing for Robust and Efficient Services
              in the Future Mobile Internet", Proceedings of ICC
              FutureNet V, 2012.

   [112]      Blefari Melazzi, N., Detti, A., Arumaithurai, M., and K.
              Ramakrishnan, "Internames: A name-to-name principle for
              the future internet", QShine, August 2014.

   [113]      Sifalakis, M., Kohler, B., Christopher, C., and C.
              Tschudin, "An information centric network for computing
              the distribution of computations", ACM, ICN Sigcomm, 2014.

   [114]      Lu, R., Lin, X., Zhu, H., and X. Shen, "SPARK: a new
              VANET-based smart parking scheme for large parking lots",
              INFOCOM, 2009.

   [115]      Wang, H. and W. He, "A reservation-based smart parking
              system", The First International Workshop on Cyber-
              Physical Networking Systems, 2011.

   [116]      Qian, L., "Constructing Smart Campus Based on the Cloud
              Computing and the Internet of Things", Computer Science

   [117]      Project, BonVoyage., "European Unions - Horizon 2020,
              http://bonvoyage2020.eu/", 2016.

   [118]      Li, S., Zhang, Y., Raychaudhuri, D., Ravindran, R., Zheng,
              Q., Wang, GQ., and L. Dong, "IoT Middleware over
              Information-Centric Network", Global Communications
              Conference (GLOBECOM) ICN Workshop, 2015.

   [119]      Li, S., Chen, J., Yu, H., Zhang, Y., Raychaudhuri, D.,
              Ravindran, R., Gao, H., Dong, L., Wang, GQ., and H. Liu,
              "MF-IoT: A MobilityFirst-Based Internet of Things
              Architecture with Global Reachability and Communication
              Diversity", IEEE International Conference on Internet-of-
              Things Design and Implementation (IoTDI), 2016.

   [120]      Adhatarao, S., Chen, J., Arumaithurai, M., and X. Fu,
              "Comparison of naming schema in ICN", IEEE LANMAN, June ,

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 47]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   [121]      Campolo, C., Corujo, D., Iera, A., and R. Aguiar,
              "Information-centric Networking for Internet-of-things:
              Challenges and Opportunities", IEEE Networks, Jan , 2015.

Authors' Addresses

   Prof.Yanyong Zhang
   WINLAB, Rutgers University
   671, U.S 1
   North Brunswick, NJ  08902

   Email: yyzhang@winlab.rutgers.edu

   Prof. Dipankar Raychadhuri
   WINLAB, Rutgers University
   671, U.S 1
   North Brunswick, NJ  08902

   Email: ray@winlab.rutgers.edu

   Prof. Luigi Alfredo Grieco
   Politecnico di Bari (DEI)
   Via Orabona 4
   Bari  70125

   Email: alfredo.grieco@poliba.it

   Prof. Emmanuel Baccelli
   Room 148, Takustrasse 9
   Berlin  14195

   Email: Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 48]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   Jeff Burke
   102 East Melnitz Hall
   Los Angeles, CA  90095

   Email: jburke@ucla.edu

   Ravishankar Ravindran
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050

   Email: ravi.ravindran@huawei.com

   Guoqiang Wang
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050

   Email: gq.wang@huawei.com

   Anders Lindgren
   Box 1263
   Kista  SE-164 29

   Email: anders.lindgren@ri.se

   Bengt Ahlgren
   Box 1263
   Kista, CA  SE-164 29

   Email: bengt.ahlgren@ri.se

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 49]

Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2017

   Olov Schelen
   Lulea University of Technology
   Lulea  SE-971 87

   Email: lov.schelen@ltu.se

Zhang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2017              [Page 50]