2013 IEEE 20th Symposium on Communications and Vehicular Technology in the Benelux (SCVT) 2013
DOI: 10.1109/scvt.2013.6735994
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of two lightweight protocols for smartphone-based sensing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
59
0
9

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 99 publications
(69 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
59
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…Another comparison between MQTT and CoAP found that the round-trip time was less for CoAP than for MQTT: 127 ms vs. 160 ms, respectively [6]. It was also determined that CoAP almost always uses less bandwidth than MQTT for the same amount of data sent, which is confirmed by other results [5,7].…”
Section: Constrained Application Protocolmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…Another comparison between MQTT and CoAP found that the round-trip time was less for CoAP than for MQTT: 127 ms vs. 160 ms, respectively [6]. It was also determined that CoAP almost always uses less bandwidth than MQTT for the same amount of data sent, which is confirmed by other results [5,7].…”
Section: Constrained Application Protocolmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…In addition, as measured by Colitti et al, 24 to demonstrate the viability of binary encoding application protocols over the TCP transport protocol, the comparison integrates the number of transferred bytes and packets per client/server transaction of HTTP protocol. Caro et al 25 provided a quantitative comparison between CoAP and message queue telemetry transport (MQTT) protocol. MQTT is a lightweight machine-to-machine (M2M) protocol based on a publish-subscribe pattern and designed to work over TCP transport protocol.…”
Section: Transferred Bytes Per Client-server Transactionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To the extent of our knowledge, there is no published literature about works performing a quantitative and qualitative evaluation between only RESTful protocols based on binary encoding. Other works, 25,30,31 present an evaluation of binary encoded protocols using different layers; however, the protocols compared in these works follow other communication patterns.…”
Section: Layers Translationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the "Direct-Push" distribution mechanism has a great advantage in the message push field, MQTT protocol does not allow message fragmentation due to the design of the protocol itself which hampers the transmission of large messages in constrained environments [12]. In this paper, we propose a distribution mechanism named "Push-Pull" for robot task distribution in large scale.…”
Section: B "Push-pull" Distribution Mechanismmentioning
confidence: 99%