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

Re: Draft minutes 2010-09-15

From: James Salsman <jsalsman@talknicer.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:18:11 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikYA6FD1vppJszyErqSupdc58GMOA5rcwzewP2K@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com, public-device-apis@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:42 AM,  <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
> Attached are draft minutes from today's call, 2010-09-15. Thanks to Bryan for scribing. HTML follows text.

Renaming the "Features and Capabilities" document to "Permissions" is good.

Why is a discussion of codec defaults more appropriate for the HTML
working group?  Codecs are parts of devices.

How can the assertion that consensus is likely to be difficult on a
question about the most appropriate default be construed as opposition
to the proposed default if a superior alternative hasn't been
proposed?

I would prefer that the network device expose the following
information about its connection:

1. Able to send IP packets (as a bandwidth)

2. Able to receive IP packets (as a bandwidth)

3. Round-trip-time statistics

4. End-to-end delivery compatibility (e.g., NAT-free)

5. Network neutrality (e.g., conforming to IANA/ICANN DNS authorities
without address translation)

6. Secure-compatibility (e.g., able to send HTTPS traffic without overhead)

7. Expectation of privacy (e.g. via carriers with satisfactory privacy
policies and without a history of eavesdropping)

8. Cost per bit

Especially in multi-homing situations, this would allow users of the
network device API to optimize network selection based on user
activity.
Received on Friday, 17 September 2010 01:18:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:13 GMT