Application layer Protocols for Embedded System

Applications: A Comparison
Sreelakshmi A and Sajesh kumar U

Abstract—The Internet of Things is one of the fast-growing protocols. The transport layer protocol TCP (Transmission
trends in information technology applications. As with the growth Control Protocol) is used for connection-oriented transmission
of IoT devices, the volume and pace of the data also increased for messages whereas the user datagram protocol (UDP)
to a greater extend. The data transfer is possible with the
help of a message transmission system. The protocol has a is used for connectionless service in IoT systems [2]. The
major role in effective communication with the devices and abstraction layer, which identifies varieties of protocols and
connects them using various applications on the internet of things. interfacing methods is called the application layer [3]. It is the
The application layer is responsible for the data formatting, highest layer extending from the client-side. The application
presentation, providing assistance, and also it determines the layer has a wide variety of application requirements and also it
protocols for the message transfer at the application level. The
selection of an efficient protocol is the foundation for the intact is responsible for data formatting, presentation, and creation of
IoT system. The performance aspects of the IoT protocols are a protocol for message passing. The messaging protocol within
important to its widespread utilization in various fields. However, an application plays a vital role in providing effectiveness to
the protocol feature set aspect is essential for its adoption in the M2M communication. The selection of suitable and effective
real world. The IoT devices are generally limited to computa- protocol for a messaging system is a challenging task [4]. The
tional resources and processing power, selecting a lightweight,
reliable, and secure messaging protocol becomes a daunting selection of a suitable messaging protocol for an application
challenge. This paper discusses four important application layer is done by understanding the requirements of a specific IoT
protocols that are being used to ensure a reliable bond among system. In a resource-constrained environment like IoT, it is
devices, which are connected in an IoT system. In this paper, difficult to choose a heavyweight protocol like HTTP, which
we present a comparison and an evaluation of four application also uses a single standard protocol for messaging that IoT
layer messaging protocol for IoT such as MQTT (Message Queu-
ing Telemetry Protocol), AMQP (Advanced Message Queuing cannot depend on for all its needs [5]. Some application layer
Protocol), CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol), and XMPP protocols are specifically designed for IoT environments. They
(Extensible Messaging Presence Protocol). The protocols and are designed for data collection applications in constrained en-
their characteristics are explained in this work followed by a vironments such as MQTT and CoAP [6]. For reliable and fast
comparison to understand the strengths and limitations of these business transactions, the application layer protocol such as
protocols.
Index Terms—IoT, MQTT, AMQP, CoAP, XMPP AMQP is used [7]. The XMPP protocol is designed for instant
messaging and online presence detection. The extension of the
I. I NTRODUCTION baseline XMPP to the publish-subscribe model is suitable for
IoT environments [8]. The comparison of various application-

T HERE is tremendous growth in IoT devices, these days,

because of the high requirements of automation in var-
ious fields. As with the growth of the IoT devices, the
layer protocols is investigated in various works. The authors
in [9] present a comparative study based on the performance
of AMQP protocol and RESTful Web services by considering
data generated and exchanged between these devices are
the exchange of messages between the client and the server. In
also increasing. The data transmission protocol is used to
this study, they concluded that AMQP protocol gives the best
connect and transfer the data and it also optimizes the energy
results when exchanging large quantities of data as compared
resources and ensures the stability of the connection with
to RESTful web services. In [10], the comparison of MQTT
data integrity. In lower layer communication the technologies
protocol and AMQP protocol is done by implementing them
such as WLAN (IEEE 802.11), WPAN (IEEE 802.15), RFID
in a real IoT environment. The results showed that in a no
(Radio Frequency Identification), and WMAN (IEEE 802.16)
delay environment when the data loss rate is nil or high
are used [1]. And also the technology such as Zigbee which
(ie,0% or 20%) the AMQP provides better results because
can support up to 65000 nodes over a network with low
of the presence of a queue in the AMQP which maintains
data rate are used for lower-layer communication layers [2].
the operation even the loss rate is high. However, when the
There are other protocols which help in the end to end
rate of loss is lower like 5%, the better output is given by
communication through the network called transport layer
MQTT-QoS 0,1. The authors in [11] compared protocols such
Sreelakshmi A is associated with the Department of Electronics and as MQTT, AMQP, CoAP with HTTP. They analyzed the proto-
Communication, Government College of Engineering Kannur, Kerala, India. cols based on their bandwidth versus latency, M2M IoT usage
(e-mail:sreelakshmia33@gmail.com) versus standardization, etc., with HTTP. The comparison of
Sajesh kumar U is with the Department of Electronics and Commu-
nication, Government College of Engineering Kannur, Kerala, India. (e- protocols is necessary to understand their use for IoT systems
mail:sajesh@gcek.ac.in) to discover the best-suited solutions. So, this paper presents a

193
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3791124
Government College of Engineering Kannur (GCEK)
comparison of the four messaging protocols Message Queuing
Telemetry Transport (MQTT), Extensible Messaging and Pres-
ence Protocol (XMPP), Advanced Message Queuing Protocol
(AMQP), and Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) that
are used in embedded applications. In this work, section II
presents a general evaluation of these protocols to introduce
their characteristics. In section III, comparative analysis based
on security, power consumption, payload support, quality of
service, transmission delay and protocol implementation is
described to understand the strengths and limitations of these
Fig. 1. MQTT Publish-Subscribe Model.[10]
protocols and finally concluded in section IV

II. A PPLICATION L AYER P ROTOCOLS FOR E MBEDDED

S YSTEM A PPLICATIONS
In this section, four different application layer protocols
that are used for embedded applications (MQTT, AMQP,
CoAP and XMPP) are briefly discussed. The common features
and their architecture for the implementation in a real IoT
environment is also detailed.

A. Message Queuing Telemetry Transport Protocol( MQTT)

MQTT is the lightweight message transmission data proto-
col invented by IBM and Eurotech. In the OSI model based
TCP/IP, it is an application layer protocol having a very
lightweight overhead as it has a fixed header size[11]. It is Fig. 2. AMQP Message Distribution Model.[2]
an OASIS based standard and has an asymmetric architecture.
MQTT is suitable for M2M (Machine to machine). The data
transfer using MQTT is good, reliable, and easy to build [12]. 2) QoS 1: A message is passed at least once and delivery
Hyun Cheon Hwang and et al. designed and implemented a of the message is possible more than once.
MQTT Protocol based reliable message transmission system 3) QoS 2: A message is passed exactly once with 4 way
in IoT [12]. It uses lesser network resources even in unstable handshaking.
conditions. The MQTT publish-subscribe model is shown in If there is a time delay, for delivering a message exactly once,
Fig 1. This publish-subscribe model comprises of a broker and the system needs reliable message delivery which uses QoS
clients. The client set up a connection with the broker at any 2. The QoS of MQTT push protocol does not guarantee the
time. In this model, the clients who send a message to the ordering of messages when it sends various messages but only
broker are known as the publishers. The main function of the guarantees the single message delivery[12].
broker is to refine the messages coming from the publisher and
then hand out to clients who are interested in accepting these B. Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP)
messages. For receiving the messages the subscriber client The Advanced message queuing protocol is introduced as
needs to register with the broker and subscribes to a specific an open replacement for the exiting messenger middleware.
topic in the broker. The topic is a message string help to refine The AMQP protocol which uses high-level message queue
the messages for the clients. The subscriber, publisher, and was developed by John O’Hara at JP Morgan [10]. AMQP
message broker together form the MQTT protocol. A client performs a wide range of functions in messaging, with the
subscribes to a topic that is created in a message broker to help of reliable queues. This protocol works on publishing
receive the messages regarding the topic. A message string and subscription-based messaging themes. AMQP is supported
to filter messages for each client is called a topic and it may by various organizations like cisco systems, GoldmanSachs,
consist of one or more topic levels. Each level of the topic RedHat, and JP Morgan chase bank. Gustavo Caiza and et al.
which is structured like a tree is distinguished by a slash (/). used AMQP protocol in an IoT environment for industrial shop
The transmission Quality of Service (QoS) levels is defined by floor integration [13]. The AMQP not only provides security
MQTT push protocol. It guaranteed the delivery of a single but also the convenience and the possibility to connect to
message between sender and receiver which is an agreement applications on different platforms. The foundation of AMQP
between sender and receiver. Three levels of QoS are there in is the possibility to connect to various business partners using
MQTT. an open standard that is fully featured and providing space
1) QoS 0: A message is passed at most once and delivery for innovation. The AMQP uses TCP for all communication
of the message is not guaranteed. and TLS/SSL is used for security. The publish and subscribe

194
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3791124
Government College of Engineering Kannur (GCEK)
 TABLE I
COMPARISON OF PROTOCOLS : MQTT, AMQP, C OAP & XMPP. [2][11][16]

Criteria MQTT AMQP CoAP XMPP

Architecture Broker/Client Server/Client or Broker/Client Server/Client Broker/Client

Messaging Pattern Publish/Subscribe Publish/Subscribe or Request/Response Request/Response Publish/Subscribe

Standards OASIS OASIS, ISO/IEC IETF Eclipse Foundation IETF

Addressing topic only queue,topic/ routing key URI Jabber Identification

Transport protocol TCP TCP UDP TCP

Security TLS/SSL TLS/SSL&SASL DTLS TLS/SASL

Encoding Format Binary Binary Binary XML

Quality of Service (QoS)/ Reliability QoS 0, Settle Format,Unsettle Format Confirmable Message Fire- and- forget
QoS 1, QoS 2 Non- confirmable Message
Maximum payload per packet 256 MB Negotiable & undefined 64 KB 10000 bytes
(depends on broker/server) (for block-wise UDP transfer) (Max.stanza size depends )
(on server)

model supports topic-based messaging. The protocol supports C. Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
2 messaging modes, browse mode, and consume mode. The
client looks up for the stored message in a queue specified for The IEFT CORE working group published CoAP as
the client in the browse mode whereas in the consume mode, RFC752[15]. This protocol is mainly designed for resource-
the message is deleted from the queue after the consumption constrained networks and devices as a web transfer proto-
of the message by the client. The message distribution model col[2]. The application of CoAP is there in e-Health systems,
of AMQP is shown in Fig 2. The model comprises of three smart lighting systems and smart home environments etc,. In
components that are exchange, binding, and queues. AMQP 2017 Markel Iglesias- Urkia and et al. implemented CoAP for
provides the exchange and delivery of a message on multiple the industrial internet of things [14]. CoAP uses the concept
levels. The routing agent receives the messages and redirected of URI and internet media types of the web for their request-
them internally to the queues together with a routing key. response interaction. The transfer protocol of CoAP is UDP
The routing agent represents exchange and it resides in a and the security is over DTLS. The support for discovering
broker’s server. For the exchange of the message, a definite services and resources are provided by CoAP. The HTTP’s
matching criterion and the corresponding algorithm is needed. request verbs such as GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE are
The message queue is actually a FIFO buffer, which is used to used by CoAP because it works similar to HTTP[2]. The
store the message temporarily for an application. The bindings response code and the content format of HTTP are also used
transfer the message exchange and queue depending on the by CoAP but there is an additional one in the case of CoAP
type of exchange. There are 4 main types of exchange for the when it comes to content format. The port 5683 and 5684 of
message that is direct, topic, fan-out, and header CoAP are used as the default port and secure port respectively.
The format of CoAP URI is coap://host[:port]/[path][?query]
1) Direct exchange type: In direct exchange type, the mes- [14]. The path of this URI is used by the user to access the
sage is redirected to queue, based on the routing key associated resource available for them and also for sending queries to
with that message. If the message routing key matches to the the server. The message structure of the CoAP is shown in
binding key of the queue then transfer occurs. Fig 3. The message has a fixed length header of 4 byte and
2) Topic exchange type: Similar to MQTT, the transfer is a variable sized part. The version of CoAP specification is
based on the topic (routing pattern). The publisher redirected defined in the first 2 header bit and the last 2 bit is received
the message to the queue together with a routing key. But the for the message type. The UDP does not assure the guarantee
successful transfer of message occurs only when the routing of message delivery so, CoAP implements it through two of its
key matches to the routing pattern resides in the queue. message type that is confirmable, non-confirmable in a higher
stack level. The acknowledgments are conveyed through other
3) Fan out exchange type: Fan out exchange broadcasts 2 types of messages that may hold resets and piggybacked
messages to all subscribes unconditionally to the queue, it does data. The length of the token is defined by the rest of the
not need a routing key for binding the message. first byte. The message code and the 2 remaining bytes in the
4) Header exchange type: The message transferred in the next header byte contain message ID. The different sections of
header exchange type is mainly based on the header property variable sized part are a long token of 0-8 byte which contain
matching. It is similar to the HTTP request-response paradigm. variable number of options and a payload. Although DTLS

195
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3791124
Government College of Engineering Kannur (GCEK)
secures the message, the routing information is not secured.
Denial of Service (DoS) attacks, resource consumption and
other similar concerns that are related to TCP/IP stack are out
of the scope of this section.

D. Extensible Messaging Presence Protocol (XMPP)

The XMPP Protocol which is originally named Jabber was
designed to create applications that provide instant messaging
services[8]. This open standard protocol follows a client/server
architecture[2]. It uses XML format for the exchange of data.
It uses TCP/IP for transport and SASL/TLS for security. XML Fig. 3. CoAP message format.[15]
uses an email address like form with a fully qualified domain
name and a valid resource when running over a network
called Jabber ID[8]. The XMPP provides essential services and
extension services. The XMPP extension protocol (XEP) is
one of the extended core services of XMPP. The pub/sub-XEP
is an XMPP extension protocol which allows XMPP to bear
the publish-subscribe model. Heng Wang and et al. proposed
a lightweight XMPP publish-subscribe model by considering
the view of IoT [8]. In resource-constrained environments,
it is heavy to run the original XMPP protocol because it
mainly concentrates on the application on the internet. For the
requirements of IoT, they optimize and enhance the original
XMPP protocol. The XMPP based publish/subscribe model
for IoT also consists of publishers, subscribers, and the XMPP
server. The publish/subscribe communication system structure
is shown in Fig 4. Here the subscribers need to request the Fig. 4. XMPP Publish/subscribe communication system structure.[8]
service of the server. When the subscription rule is satisfied
the publisher will manifest the requested information to give
periodic and event-driven data publishing services and pub- security, payload support, power consumption, transmission la-
lish the message. In their system, the exchange of data is tency and protocol implementation guide to select an efficient
performed either periodically or event-driven. In this scheme, protocol for designing and implementing IoT systems.
the server not only acts as a data transfer medium but also
governs and preserves the relationship between publisher and A. QoS (Quality of Service)
subscriber. The server also delivers a proxy sleep service when The MQTT has 3 levels of Quality of Service in which QoS
the publisher is in sleep mode. The XMPP client can act 2 has no substitute in any other protocol. Therefore MQTT has
as a subscriber, publisher, or both at the same time. The better QOS as compared to the protocols CoAP and HTTP
complexities of the system implementation are residing on [17]. The XMPP provides time-stamps for the server to use,
the server-side not on client-side. The server needs to manage however,it does not need real-time QoS constraints[17]. The
the publish/subscribe relation within a distributed architecture QoS provided by the CoAP is similar to that of QoS 0 of
because here the publishers are permitted to send messages to the MQTT[2]. Besides, CoAP does not have built-in security.
the subscriber without knowing the existence of subscribers. When comes to reliability, the XMPP’s baseline provides
Here based on the subscriber’s need, the publisher can adjust reliable transport of message. The protocols which run over
the data published by them and thereby decrease the amount of the TCP have more reliability than the protocol which uses
data published thus save energy for the resource-constrained UDP eg. CoAP[11]. The AMQP provides two levels of QoS
devices. In original XMPP(XEP-0060), the data published to in which unsettle format is similar to QoS1 of MQTT whereas
a node not only include the details that one subscriber needs settle format is similar MQTT QoS0[11].
but also some additional information for other subscribers
but in IoT, the content published is limited or simple while B. Security
comparing with the internet. The need of security in the protocol is increasing with the
increase in the number of microservices that IoT systems
III. C OMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PROTOCOLS offer. The vulnerability of attack is more in TLS protocol
In this section, we compare some of the most common and most of the embedded protocols such as MQTT, CoAP
features of the protocols. The comparison is shown in table I. is transmitting their data using TLS are also under threat of
And also, the comparison of protocols MQTT, AMQP, CoAP, attacks. The AMQP protocol uses SASL, which provides a
and XMPP concerning some features such as reliability /QoS, mechanism for authorizing entities and therefore the AMQP

196
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3791124
Government College of Engineering Kannur (GCEK)
protocol is more secure[11]. The XMPP protocol offers a IV. C ONCLUSION
robust authentication using a token which is also based on The messaging protocols ensure better connectivity between
SASL. When comparing the protocols MQTT, AMQP, CoAP, IoT devices. The robustness and vulnerability of each protocol
and XMPP the XMPP is more secure due to the extension that have an increasingly important part in deciding a desirable
provides called authorization token[2]. The AMQP security protocol for IoT systems. In this paper, we have presented
which comes after the XMPP is moderately secure whereas a comparison of four application layer messaging protocols
the MQTT, CoAP ensure low security[2]. (MQTT, AMQP, CoAP, and XMPP) for IoT applications.
We have compared the protocols based on payload support,
C. Power consumption security, QoS, power consumption, transmission latency, and
protocol implementation to understand its strengths and lim-
Among these protocols, the AMQP consumes more power.
itations. Each protocol has its advantages which make them
It is followed by CoAP then MQTT. MQTT is the protocol
suitable for certain embedded applications. For example, In
that consumes less power and suitable for energy-constrained
a multi-sensor IoT environment, MQTT performs better in
IoT environments[11]. For high payloads and small payloads,
transmission latency, QoS and also consumes less power. So,
MQTT consumes less power than other protocols. The power
for a power-constrained IoT environment, MQTT is a better
consumption of HTTP is 5.3 times more than that of MQTT
solution. This paper will help users and embedded developers
and 2.8 times of CoAP[19]. Some works [19] also reveal that
to pick an acceptable protocol for their embedded applications.
CoAP had 1.9 times more power consumption than MQTT.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
D. Payload support This work was supported by Rural Technology Development
Centre (RTDC) GCE Kannur
The human-understandable payload is needed for human-
centric communication. The JSON format is the best choice in R EFERENCES
the case of a machine to machine communication[17]. Among [1] V. Gazis, M. Gortz, M. Huber, A. Leonardi, K. Mathioudakis, A.
these protocols, MQTT can be used when a user or designer Wiesmaier, F. Zeiger, and E. Vasilomanolakis, “A survey of technologies
need to control over their data format. for the internet of things,” in 2015 IEEE International Wireless Commu-
nications and Mobile Computing Conference, 2015, pp. 1090–1095.
[2] E. Al-Masri et al., ”Investigating Messaging Protocols for the Internet
E. Transmission latency of Things (IoT),” in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 94880-94911, 2020, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2993363.
The transmission latency mainly depends upon the trans- [3] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Open Sys-
tems Interconnection (OSI) Standard (35.100). [Online]. Available:
mission protocol. The MQTT, AMQP and XMPP use TCP https://www.iso.org/ics/35.100/x, Accessed on: April 18, 2020
protocol for the data transmission. The TCP has a slow [4] N. Naik, P. Jenkins, P. Davies, and D. Newell, “Native web communi-
start approach because for the first few roundtrips of the cation protocols and their effects on the performance of web services
and systems,” in 16th IEEE International Conference on Computer and
connection and it does not utilize the available bandwidth Information Technology (CIT). IEEE, 2016, pp. 219–225.
requirements[11]. In UDP transmission, it uses 2 UDP data- [5] N. Naik and P. Jenkins, “Web protocols and challenges of web latency in
grams, one for the request and another for the response. This the web of things,” in 2016 Eighth International Conference on Ubiquitous
and Future Networks (ICUFN). IEEE, 2016, pp. 845–850.
helps to improve the latency of CoAP[11]. The latency of [6] N. De Caro, W. Colitti, K. Steenhaut, G. Mangino, and G. Reali,
CoAP is also improved due to its small packet size and “Comparison of two lightweight protocols for smartphone-based sensing,”
absence of a keep-alive message. However, for a multi-sensor in Communications and Vehicular Technology in the Benelux (SCVT),
2013 IEEE 20th Symposium on. IEEE, 2013, pp. 1–6.
IoT system which receives same commands from a broker [7] A. Foster, “Messaging technologies for the industrial internet and the
or server, the MQTT performs better than CoAP because it internet of things whitepaper,” PrismTech, 2015.
forwards messages automatically to all subscribers at the same [8] H. Wang, D. Xiong, P. Wang and Y. Liu, ”A Lightweight XMPP
Publish/Subscribe Scheme for Resource-Constrained IoT Devices,”
time[18]. The AMQP has moderately higher latency due to the in IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 16393-16405, 2017, doi: 10.1109/AC-
extra services that providing to an IoT system[11]. CESS.2017.2742020.
[9] J. L. Fernandes, I. C. Lopes, J. J. P. C. Rodrigues and S. Ul-
lah, ”Performance evaluation of RESTful web services and AMQP
F. Protocol implementation protocol,” 2013 Fifth International Conference on Ubiquitous and
Future Networks (ICUFN), Da Nang, 2013, pp. 810-815, doi:
The protocols discussed in this paper share some common 10.1109/ICUFN.2013.6614932.
features which make them apt for various types of communi- [10] N. Q. Uy and V. H. Nam, ”A comparison of AMQP and MQTT protocols
for Internet of Things,” 2019 6th NAFOSTED Conference on Information
cations but they may differ in some functionality they support. and Computer Science (NICS), Hanoi, Vietnam, 2019, pp. 292-297, doi:
Some protocols are still evolving but some are widely used in 10.1109/NICS48868.2019.9023812.
various platforms and organizations. For the implementation [11] N. Naik, ”Choice of effective messaging protocols for IoT systems:
MQTT, CoAP, AMQP and HTTP,” 2017 IEEE International Systems
of the protocols, various languages such as java, javascript, Engineering Symposium (ISSE), Vienna, 2017, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/Sy-
C, python, etc. are used. The implementation size of the sEng.2017.8088251.
protocols mainly depends on the language that is used for [12] Hwang, H.C., Park, J. and Shon, J.G.”Design and Implemen-
tation of a Reliable Message Transmission System Based on
implementation although it depends on the protocol used for MQTT Protocol in IoT”.Wireless Pers Commun 91, 1765–1777
the implementation. (2016).https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-016-3398-2

197
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3791124
Government College of Engineering Kannur (GCEK)
[13] G. Caiza, E. S. Llamuca, C. A. Garcia, F. Gallardo-Cardenas, D. Lanas
and M. V. Garcia, ”Industrial Shop-Floor Integration Based on AMQP
protocol in an IoT Environment,” 2019 IEEE Fourth Ecuador Technical
Chapters Meeting (ETCM), Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2019, pp. 1-6, doi:
10.1109/ETCM48019.2019.9014858.
[14] Iglesias-Urkia, M., Orive, A., Urbieta, A. et al.”Analysis of CoAP imple-
mentations for industrial Internet of Things: a survey”.J Ambient Intell
Human Comput 10, 2505–2518 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-
018-0729-z
[15] Shelby Z, Hartke K, Bormann C (2014) ”The constrained application
protocol (CoAP)”. https ://tools .ietf.org/html/rfc72 52. Accessed 17 Jan
2018
[16] T. Sultana and K. A. Wahid, ”Choice of Application Layer Protocols
for Next Generation Video Surveillance Using Internet of Video Things,”
in IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 41607-41624, 2019, doi: 10.1109/AC-
CESS.2019.2907525.
[17] S. R. U. Kakakhel, T. Westerlund, M. Daneshtalab, Z. Zou, J. Plosila
and H. Tenhunen, ”A Qualitative Comparison Model for Application
Layer IoT Protocols,” 2019 Fourth International Conference on Fog and
Mobile Edge Computing (FMEC), Rome, Italy, 2019, pp. 210-215, doi:
10.1109/FMEC.2019.8795324.
[18] H. W. van der Westhuizen and G. P. Hancke, ”Practical Com-
parison between COAP and MQTT - Sensor to Server level,”
2018 Wireless Advanced (WiAd), London, 2018, pp. 1-6, doi:
10.1109/WIAD.2018.8588443.
[19] J. Joshi, V. Rajapriya, S. Rahul, P. Kumar, S. Polepally, R. Samineni and
D. Tej, ”Performance enhancement and IoT based Monitoring for Smart
Home,” In 2017 International Conference on Information Networking
(ICOIN), pp. 468–473, 2017.

198
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3791124
Government College of Engineering Kannur (GCEK)