We need a good idea of how people want this to work before we can
continue. Standards make me nervous as they can be a huge timesink both
for implementation, certification, and maintenance.
On 8/9/16 4:00 AM, Thomas Darimont wrote:
Hello Eduard,
could you elaborate a bit on your use case?
1) How many devices do you need to manage? thousands, millions, billions?
2) Do you preregister devices or do you need to register them ad-hoc?
3) Do you need a device to user mapping?
4) What (general) metadata do you need to store per device?
(DeviceInfo, e.g.: Device class, type, unique-id, device name, create
/ update timestamp, features (perhaps as "tags"), enabled state,
activation state, link to the actual device, link to device specs)
5) Do yo hard code a secret to the device and does the secret needs to
be part of the device info in KC?
Given the current Keycloak infrastructure I'd (IMHO) rather see a
dedicated infrastructure
for IoT devices (Device Management?) instead of extending and using
the existing client facilities for this.
Cheers,
Thomas
2016-08-09 8:40 GMT+02:00 Matuszak, Eduard <eduard.matuszak(a)atos.net
<mailto:eduard.matuszak@atos.net>>:
Hello
My question is: Is Keycloak planned or are there still any efforts
to implement standards for the IOT also in the near future, e.g.
to support CoAp or CBOR-Web-Tokens? We are asked to integrate
resource constrained devices (by a large amount) in our project
and it would be nice to keep Keycloak as AuthN/AuthZ-server to do
the essential work.
Best Regards, Eduard Matuszak
_______________________________________________
keycloak-user mailing list
keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-user@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user>
_______________________________________________
keycloak-user mailing list
keycloak-user(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user