Municipal parking sensors must send frequent small telemetry to a city cloud. Which application protocol choice is most fit for efficient telemetry versus chatty HTTP polling?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Parking sensors whisper tiny updates all day. MQTT-style pub/sub is the walkie-talkie; constant HTTP polling is mailing a novel every second.
Full Explanation
Municipal parking sensors sending frequent small telemetry fit MQTT or similar pub/sub lightweight IoT messaging far better than chatty HTTP polling. Raw SMTP email from each sensor for every occupancy change is operationally absurd and inefficient. Full webpage scrapes over HTTP GET every second from each sensor waste power and backhaul. FTP uploads of binary dumps once per month only miss near-real-time parking needs. Exam caveat: match application protocols to telemetry patterns and device constraints. Operational check: prototype MQTT telemetry volume and broker scaling, confirm city cloud ingestion, and reject polling designs that would flood the municipal IoT backhaul. In municipal WLAN and IoT operations, record the chosen control and the rejected alternatives in the change ticket so on-call staff understand which failure modes were avoided for city services. Re-validate after the next maintenance window that the same control still holds under the current platform code, device mix, and civic event calendar used by the wireless team. Keep RF, capacity, security, and QoS evidence attached to the municipal runbook entry for auditors and future CWNE-level reviews. Attach spectrum, capacity, security, and QoS evidence to the municipal runbook entry so auditors and future CWNE-level reviews can replay why this control was selected for city services.