W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Network Service Discovery API

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:11:39 +0000
To: <alexander.adolf@condition-alpha.com>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4108C917-A077-483E-8742-9AB7A6006F16@nokia.com>
Alexander

we are agreed to publish after checking with Rich (editor)  first to make sure there are no issues.

thanks for your review and comments.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Feb 17, 2014, at 9:04 AM, ext Alexander Adolf <alexander.adolf@condition-alpha.com> wrote:

> Dear Jean-Claude, Colleagues,
> 
> On 2014-02-12, at 15:55 , Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote:
> 
>> [...]
>> Le 12/2/14 12:33 , Alexander Adolf a écrit :
>>> (1) Obscure all information about the device *except*
>>> the friendlyName by replacing it with a per-session hash value before exposing 
>>> [...]
>> JCD: This was discussed, and here is one exchange: my proposal (with elements similar to yours) and Rich's response 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Oct/0062.html
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Oct/0065.html
>> 
>> How would the rest of the web app work in your case ? 
>> I advocate the extension of NSD to include messaging, but how would you handle messaging ?
>> [...]
> 
> Thanks for the pointers, and apologies for re-raising already discussed points.
> 
> Rich has a very good point in his response. Considering the diversity of the underlying mechanisms, a URI is probably the most useful handle for any service.
> 
> Looking at the current editor's draft, I think it is probably as good as it is going to get without having a complete Web of Things solution on the table. I agree the wording is quite vague, but IMO it's just as vague as it needs to be. In the short term, I'd be surprised if we saw a significant number of connected devices that implement CORS. Hence, I think that the current editor's draft seems to be just the right cut.
> 
> So my view would be that it'd seem appropriate to me to proceed towards TR on the basis of the current editor's draft. As I tried to hint in my initial message, there are a couple of folks in other standards bodies keenly waiting for this. ;-)
> 
> I was on the IRC during last week's telechat, but couldn't get my SIP stuff too work, so I was wondering whether any conclusion was drawn regarding updating the WD?
> 
> 
> Many thanks and cheers,
> 
>  --alexander1
Received on Monday, 17 February 2014 16:12:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:02 UTC