Rigged Or Reasonable? RFPs Require Being ONVIF Full Member

A member from Turkey shared some RFPs that are taking a novel approach to specifying ONVIF.

Requiring ONVIF for IP cameras makes sense as it enhances future flexibility. Indeed, we recommend specifying Profile S and verification from the ONVIF official directory to make sure suppliers are current and not faking it.

However, some RFPs are going much further, requiring companies (including potentially integrators) to be full members of ONVIF.

"Full" is the top level, most expensive tier of ONVIF and not necessary to have one's product conformant. See levels below:

Contrast to these RFPs.

First from a university:

And here from a railway:

Theoretically, the case is that being a full member provides greater access or potentially knowledge about ONVIF.

However, it appears to be overkill.

Vote - What Do You Think?


I agree with the 'overkill' view. However, having worked with cams in my lab that are supposed to be ONVIF.... AND VMSs that are supposed to be able to work with ONVIF.... but for whatever reasons they dont work well.

I would expect that membership in the top 3 tiers.... perhaps even the top two... would hopefully allow the ONVIF infrastructure to have a better chance of actually working since they have more skin in the game.

Yes, Cisco is an excellent example of that. They are Full Members of ONVIF, yet.....

I am interested in relavant standards that would provide my clients--- particuarly where a public project is concerned --- with a reasoanble way to better assure a level of quality. After all, I use all kinds of standards (ANSI, SDI, UL, etc) for other security products.

The ONVIF web site has searchable list of manufacturers. At what membership level(s) do you get to have your company name on this list? And you can be ONVIF compliant, without being listed, but but how can I confirm whether or not the manufacturer does in fact comply?

At any level of membership you can use ONVIF's name but you can only claim conformance / certification if the specific product is listed in ONVIF's directory. That answers your second question - where you can confirm it complies.

I would think that a statement "ONVIF Listed" would be the most appropriate language.

Disagree. That is not specific enough. You need to say where it is listed and under what category, as there are two - archived and current / Profile. It is the later, filed here, that is the appropriate / correct / optimal directory.

Agree (i failed to mention your points). Would not let a manufacture off the hook that easy..... Just like i cite other standards.

Newest Discussions

Posts Latest
38
less than a minute by Rick Pfitzner
2
less than a minute by Brian Rhodes
1
less than a minute by Undisclosed Integrator #1
6
less than a minute by Undisclosed Integrator #2
4
about 3 hours by Steven Ballard