Join the Largest Global Community in Computing

What is Platform EngineeringBefore we understand platform engineering (PE), let’s quickly run through a scenario of typical software teams. Here, we have multiple teams working on different projects. Each team has their own way to set up servers, set up CI/CD pipelines, set up monitoring tools, and deployment scripts, etc. The problem is that, when we have a completely new team for a new project, the company has to spend time and resources to set them up with the same set of tools. In some cases, the setup is included in the project scope. The tools can be different based on the technology stack, but the motive would be the same. This can be time-consuming and costly.Enter platform engineering - The idea behind platform engineering is to give developers ready-to-use, standardized tools and environments so they don’t reinvent the wheel every time. It is also referred to as “Internal Developer Platform”—IDP. Basically, with IDP, the team doesn’t have to spend time setting up infrastructure. They can just focus on the development of real products.Is it the same as DevOps? No. This is a common misconception about platform engineering. DevOps is more like a set of principles/guidelines (culture + practices) for achieving faster, automated, and more reliable software delivery. Platform engineering takes those principles and builds reusable systems (platforms) so that all teams can apply DevOps without reinventing automation from scratch.Importance of Platform EngineeringDuring the early adoption of DevOps (around the year 2000), it was expected that developers should implement necessary infrastructures beyond the actual product. While it improved ownership, it also created an unintended consequence: developer cognitive overload. [1]Research shows that developers spend over 10x more time reading and understanding code than writing it. Add to this the operational burden of managing complex deployment pipelines, monitoring systems, and infrastructure configurations,…

IntroductionThe IEEE Computer Society’ latest standard, IEEE Std P3158.1-2025 — Standard for Testing and Performance of a Trusted Data Matrix (TDM) System, defines how to evaluate whether “trusted data matrix” platforms actually perform as promised in real-world, multi-party data sharing. In plain terms, it sets performance and test requirements, procedures, and acceptance criteria so that implementers and buyers can verify functionality, reliability, and interoperability rather than taking them on faith.Why is this standard important? As data ecosystems expand across organizations and jurisdictions, stakeholders need infrastructure that enables secure, transparent, and accountable exchange and use of data—end-to-end and at scale. The TDM concept meets this need as a decentralized digital infrastructure built on consensus-driven requirements, agreements, and management tools to support the full data-sharing lifecycle; Std 3158.1 supplies the common test and performance yardstick to validate such systems’ effectiveness and interoperability.Technically, the standard’s significance is twofold. First, it codifies what “good” looks like across core modules—identity and authentication, data asset management, supply–demand docking, trusted environment, usage control, tool services, and compliance—so systems can be tested against shared benchmarks. Second, it provides structured test strategies, metrics, and reporting to support procurement, certification, and continuous improvement across industries adopting data-space architectures.Overview of the StandardIEEE Std 3158.1-2025 — Standard for Testing and Performance of a Trusted Data Matrix (TDM) System, specifies the performance and test requirements, procedures, and acceptance criteria used to evaluate TDM systems: digital infrastructures that enable trusted, secure, transparent, and accountable data sharing among multiple stakeholders.  It defines a common yardstick for validating functionality, reliability, and interoperability across modules.The standard targets TDM systems, defined as decentralized data infrastructures that support the entire data-sharing life cycle.  It organizes conformance around core modules—identification & authentication, data asset management, supply-and-demand docking, trusted environment, data asset control, data tool services, and compliance—and sets out test…

IntroductionThe advent of large-scale distributed networks has brought unprecedented opportunities, yet it has also amplified the inherent uncertainties associated with machine hardware failures and network instabilities. These challenges include unexpected downtime, message delays, induced disorder, message loss during transmission, and various forms of malicious attacks.The IEEE Std 3220.01-2025 (IEEE Standard for Consensus Framework for Blockchain Systems), which is one of the recently new published standards developed by the IEEE Computer Society Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Standards Committee primarily focuses on comprehensively defining blockchain consensus mechanisms, outlining the necessary protocol standards, categorizing various consensus algorithms, and detailing their relevant application scenarios.Framework OverviewThe standard provides a comprehensive framework, specifying how blockchain systems can maintain consistent state data in distributed environments. It meticulously defines the conditions that a consensus mechanism should satisfy, the protocol standards to be followed, and various environmental models that significantly influence the design of these mechanisms. Additionally, it describes mainstream consensus mechanisms and their diverse application scenarios.Key Features and BenefitsThe standard provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing and designing consensus mechanisms, addressing both foundational and scenario-specific needs. It defines basic conditions, such as validity, consistency, and finality, which are mandatory for all mechanisms to ensure integrity and reliability, while extended conditions, including scalability, fault tolerance, and regulatory compliance, are applied selectively based on specific use cases. Consensus mechanisms are systematically categorized into three primary types: incentive-based approaches like Proof of Work and Proof of Stake, Byzantine Fault Tolerance-based models such as PBFT and RBFT, and permission-based systems that differentiate between permissioned and permissionless blockchains. Additionally, the standard offers a detailed evaluation of prominent consensus algorithms, summarizing their core principles, operational processes, strengths, and limitations. This cohesive analysis highlights the evolving landscape of blockchain consensus, characterized by increasing specialization and the rise of hybrid models that combine multiple mechanisms for…