VerneMQ and Watson IoT should use same MQTT Client ID convention

[johnwalicki]

The firmware only knows the unique WiFi MAC Address of the ESP32. The device does not have a "human identifiable name". This MAC address is the unique Device ID.

The firmware uses this MAC address / DeviceID as part of the MQTT Client ID when subscribing to commands / publishing data to the MQTT broker.

The MQTT ClientID follows a set of conventions defined by Watson IoT Platform.
d:orgId:deviceType:deviceId
eg d:7p7wxk:OpenEEW:A8032A4DCC99
See https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/watson-iot-platform?topic=devices-communicating-mqtt

To keep the firmware consistent across multiple MQTT brokers, we could potentially use d:vernmq:OpenEEW:A8032A4DCC99 (vernmq without the "e" to keep it to a six character orgid - the firmware is written in C and has very specific string buffer sizes)

The firmware subscribes to MQTT command topics specifically for this device. It should only receive command messages that it should act on.

When the device seismic edge processing algorithm detects acceleration exceeding the STA/LTA threshold, it starts to publish event data with its MQTT ClientID.

We need to research how the VerneMQ MQTT broker handles MQTT topic spaces.
We will want to subscribe the seismic detection python scripts to /+/ all the OpenEEW device Client IDs.

[andygrillo]

can we close this issue given that we are moving away from complicated MQTT systems ?