W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > June 2010

RE: RE: RE: RE: changes to sysinfo (was Fwd: Agenda - Distributed Meeting 2010-06-23)

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW) <BS3131@att.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:14:29 -0700
Message-ID: <8080D5B5C113E940BA8A461A91BFFFCD12A9EADF@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net>
To: "James Salsman" <jsalsman@gmail.com>
Cc: "James Salsman" <jsalsman@talknicer.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>, "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>
James,

 

In order to keep discussions focused and to reach to a conclusion in a timely manner it’s not pragmatic to address “any aspect” in “any discussion”. Of the topics you mention, QoS is addressed in activeConnections through the bandwidth attributes. But I fail to see what other quality-related aspects could be usefully derived from a discussion of net neutrality or privacy characteristics in this context (which is limited to specifically, knowing what data connections are active). I’m not suggesting that you be prevented from discussing your ideas (I don’t have that power anyway): I just don’t see where it can usefully go in the scope of this discussion.

 

Expectation of service charges (e.g. “advice of charge”) related to a data connection is a complex topic which depends upon information that is unavailable to the user’s device (e.g. for PLMNs, the type of service plan the user is subscribed to, the charging for the specific application within that service plan, roaming state, etc). The same goes for other types of networks (e.g. the device will not know if I am using a WiFi connection that is charged at an hourly rate). As far as I know there is no standard whereby this information can be interoperably obtained in order to be rolled up into some “cost of using this network connection” measure (e.g. in terms of speed, delay, jitter, risk).

 

Thanks, 

Bryan Sullivan | AT&T

 

From: James Salsman [mailto:jsalsman@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 2:38 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
Cc: James Salsman; public-device-apis@w3.org; Tran, Dzung D
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: changes to sysinfo (was Fwd: Agenda - Distributed Meeting 2010-06-23)

 

Bryan,

Where in the charter or otherwise does it say that any aspect of service quality which might impede or degrade web services is out of scope for any discussion, let alone the definition of which connections are active or preffered?

This is twice now that people have tried to tell me that something is out of scope when there's no support for such an exclusion in the charter. That is not ethical behavior and I hope the W3C will make that clear with enforcement action.

We should also add (8) service charges to the aspects of service quality which a web device user will reasonably be expected to want to know to prefer which of the available connections are active. Are you going to try to tell me that is out of scope too?

Sincerely,
James Salsman

	On Jun 29, 2010 2:10 PM, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)" <BS3131@att.com> wrote:

	James,

	                                                                                         

	The intended scope of this discussion is much narrower I’m afraid than what you intend with the list below. I am concerned only with the definition of activeConnections as exposed through this API. As I said the determination of a preferred connection (or recommended priority) based upon QoS measures (leaving net neutrality and privacy out as a “quality” – especially since they are well beyond the scope of this discussion) is not the intent of the activeConnections attribute and should not factor into its determination.

	
	
	 
	
	Thanks,
	
	Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
	
	 

	From: James Salsman [mailto:jsalsman@gmail.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 2:02 PM

	
	To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L (ATTCINW)
	Cc: James Salsman; public-device-apis@w3.org; Tran, Dzung D

	Subject: Re: RE: RE: changes to sysinfo (was Fwd: Agenda - Distributed Meeting 2010-06-23)

	
	
	 
	
	Bryan,
	
	It may be helpful to identify all aspects of service quality, because many of them are ...

Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 22:15:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:10 GMT