- From: Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:47:56 +0100
- To: "Giuseppe Pascale" <giuseppep@opera.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, "Bob Lund" <B.Lund@cablelabs.com>
Likewise - looks good to me. Matt On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:33:48 +0100, Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Giuseppe Pascale [mailto:giuseppep@opera.com] >> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 3:24 PM >> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org; Matt Hammond; Bob Lund >> Subject: Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Comments on "Application Communication" >> requirement >> >> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:24:04 +0200, Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com> >> wrote: >> >> > So the two requirements are: >> > >> > 1.6.2.1 >> > http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Se >> > rvice_Discovery >> > 1.6.3.9 >> > http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Ap >> > plication_communication >> > >> > Correct? If so, looks good. >> > >> >> Well to sum up at the end of the discussion we have the requirements >> above plus these additional ones >> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Appl >> ication_Discovery >> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Serv >> ice_communication > > OK - fine with me. > > Bob >> >> /g >> >> > Bob >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Giuseppe Pascale [mailto:giuseppep@opera.com] >> >> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 7:30 AM >> >> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org; Bob Lund; Matt Hammond >> >> Subject: Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Comments on "Application >> Communication" >> >> requirement >> >> >> >> I merged the new requirement >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#A >> >> ppl >> >> ication_communication >> >> >> >> /g >> >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:58:47 +0200, Matt Hammond >> >> <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Ah, I see - yes discovery is probably already covered. I'm happy >> >> > with what you propose. >> >> > >> >> > many thanks >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Matt >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:15:02 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale >> >> > <giuseppep@opera.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:59:30 +0200, Matt Hammond >> >> >> <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> I think you are right - this needs separating into two >> requirements. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I believe that what Bob originally suggested regarding >> "discovery" >> >> >>> might apply "application communication" too. For example: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> "Application communication: Conforming specifications should >> >> >>> provide a means for applications running in different user-agents >> >> >>> to discover each other and exchange messages directly via the >> >> >>> home >> >> network." >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> There is a separate section/requirement for discovery. >> >> >> As is phrased now the requirement about discovery mention both >> >> >> services and "application exposing services": >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirement >> >> >> s#S >> >> >> ervice_Discovery >> >> >> >> >> >> *** >> >> >> Service Discovery: >> >> >> Conforming specifications should provide a means for applications >> >> >> to discover devices and applications in the home network which >> >> >> advertise services. Details of the advertising protocol are out of >> >> >> scope for this document and the type and number of supported >> >> >> discovery protocols are user agent dependent. Nevertheless >> >> >> conforming specifications should provide a means for application >> >> >> to identify the type of discovered services that are available and >> >> >> to search for services of a specific type. >> >> >> *** >> >> >> >> >> >> I think is just a matter of semantics here: is an application that >> >> >> is discoverable implicitly "exposing a service"? If so, then we >> >> >> may not need a new requirement; if not, we may want to separate >> >> >> discovery/communication of applications from >> >> >> discovery/communication of services. >> >> >> >> >> >> Honestly I don't have a strong opinion. One reason why we may >> >> >> want to split this in 2 requirements could be that app-2-app >> >> >> discovery and communication could probably generate slightly >> >> >> different requirements if compared to app-2-service discovery & >> >> >> communication when going into the actual specification work. >> >> >> >> >> >> In short I see 2 options: >> >> >> #1 we keep the requirement as quote above >> >> >> #2 we add to the requirement above another one that could look >> >> >> like >> >> this: >> >> >> >> >> >> *** >> >> >> Application Discovery: >> >> >> Conforming specifications should provide a means for applications >> >> >> running in different user-agents to discover each other directly >> >> >> via the home network. Details of the advertising protocol are out >> >> >> of scope for this document. >> >> >> *** >> >> >> >> >> >> I would propose to go for option #2. >> >> >> >> >> >> /g >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> many thanks >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Matt >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:31:05 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale >> >> >>> <giuseppep@opera.com> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 21:49:33 +0200, Matt Hammond >> >> >>>> <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> Definitely agree with Bob that this requirement should be >> >> >>>>> expressed in terms of how there needs to be discovery in order >> >> >>>>> to initiate communication. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Thinking about the use of the term 'services': should this be >> >> >>>>> phrased in terms of 'applications' throughout, rather than >> >> 'services'? >> >> >>>>> Communication with services is already covered by other >> >> requirements. >> >> >>>>> This particular requirement originated from the "Local Link for >> >> >>>>> Web Applications" use case[1]: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirem >> >> >>>>> ent s#U14:_Local_Link_of_Web_Applications >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Agree. It seems to me we need 2 requirements. We can leave the >> >> >>>> one about "service communication" as phrased below, plus I would >> >> >>>> add the >> >> >>>> following: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> "Application communication: Conforming specifications should >> >> >>>> provide a means for applications running in different >> >> >>>> user-agents to exchange messages directly via the home network." >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Bob, Matt, what do you think? >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> /g >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> regards >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Matt >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:08:04 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale >> >> >>>>> <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:13:38 +0200, Bob Lund >> >> >>>>>> <B.Lund@cablelabs.com> >> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> I agree but I think it should be stated in terms of access to >> >> >>>>>>> services discovered on the home network: >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> "Service communication: Conforming specifications should >> >> >>>>>>> provide a means for a client to exchange messages directly >> >> >>>>>>> via the home network with services discovered in the home >> network." >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> As discussed I changed this into >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> "Service communication: Conforming specifications should >> >> >>>>>> provide a means for an application to exchange messages >> >> >>>>>> directly via the home network with services discovered in the >> home network." >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Require >> >> >>>>>> men >> >> >>>>>> ts#Service_communication >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> /g >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Bob >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >> >> >>>>>>>> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org >> >> >>>>>>>> [mailto:public-web-and-tv- request@w3.org] On Behalf Of >> >> >>>>>>>> Jean-Claude Dufourd >> >> >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 9:05 AM >> >> >>>>>>>> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org >> >> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Comments on "Application >> >> >>>>>>>> Communication" >> >> >>>>>>>> requirement >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> I strongly support this clarification about direct >> >> communication. >> >> >>>>>>>> Best regards >> >> >>>>>>>> JC >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> On 22/8/11 16:44 , Giuseppe Pascale wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> > On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:20:43 +0200, Matt Hammond >> >> >>>>>>>> > <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >> Hi all, >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> Apologies for this being a little later than I originally >> >> >>>>>>>> intended: >> >> >>>>>>>> >> as I mentioned in last week's conf call, I have a comment >> >> >>>>>>>> regarding >> >> >>>>>>>> >> the "Application Communication" requirement. >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> Would it be helpful to clarify that this requirement is >> >> >>>>>>>> specifically >> >> >>>>>>>> >> intended to enable direct communication between >> >> applications? >> >> >>>>>>>> This >> >> >>>>>>>> >> would be to distinguish it from an implementation that >> >> >>>>>>>> >> (for >> >> >>>>>>>> example) >> >> >>>>>>>> >> sent all communications through a cloud based relay or >> >> >>>>>>>> >> proxying >> >> >>>>>>>> service? >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> For example: "Conforming specifications should provide a >> >> >>>>>>>> >> means >> >> >>>>>>>> for >> >> >>>>>>>> >> applications to exchange messages directly via the home >> >> >>>>>>>> >> network >> >> >>>>>>>> with >> >> >>>>>>>> >> other applications running on a different user agent in >> >> >>>>>>>> >> the home network." >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > Hi Matt, >> >> >>>>>>>> > thanks for raising this in writing. >> >> >>>>>>>> > I agree that several (all?) of the use cases we have >> >> >>>>>>>> > discussed >> >> >>>>>>>> require >> >> >>>>>>>> > (preferably) a direct communication. I think this is >> >> >>>>>>>> > pretty uncontroversial and could add it right away to the >> >> >>>>>>>> > requirement >> >> >>>>>>>> document. >> >> >>>>>>>> > Some of the use cases could actually be covered by an >> >> >>>>>>>> > indirect communication mechanism as well, so probably also >> >> >>>>>>>> > that would be >> >> >>>>>>>> in >> >> >>>>>>>> > scope. On other end such a mechanism may either not need >> >> >>>>>>>> (additional) >> >> >>>>>>>> > standardization or fall back to the a different discussion >> >> >>>>>>>> > about >> >> >>>>>>>> which >> >> >>>>>>>> > services could be standardized. >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > So in short I'm fine to re-word the requirement as you >> >> >>>>>>>> > suggested >> >> >>>>>>>> if >> >> >>>>>>>> > nobody objects. >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > /g >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >> regards >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> Matt >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> -- >> >> >>>>>>>> JC Dufourd >> >> >>>>>>>> Directeur d'Etudes/Professor Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia >> >> >>>>>>>> Group Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image >> >> >>>>>>>> Processing Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, >> >> >>>>>>>> France >> >> >>>>>>>> Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144 >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Giuseppe Pascale >> >> TV & Connected Devices >> >> Opera Software - Sweden >> >> >> -- >> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- | Matt Hammond | Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 21:49:03 UTC