[HOME_NETWORK_TF] Re: Use Cases & Underlying Technology

On Wed, 04 May 2011 16:45:59 +0200, Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com> wrote:
>> Use cases are important/not important regardless if they can be
>> implemented using existing technologies.
>> Saying "this use case is not important because it cannot be implemented
>> using UPnP" doesn't sound right to me.
>
> I think it's more a question of focus than importance. The initial use  
> cases and requirements centered on exposing existing HN protocols to Web  
> content. A use case that requires some new HN protocol may be important  
> but doesn't seem to be the focus of the initial problem statement.
>
That's fine for me, even though generally speaking the fact that this is  
not implementable in UPnP doesn't feel like the only factor to determine  
the importance of a use case.
It could be implementable using another existing technology for example,  
or it could be important regardless of an existing implementation.

Anyway, I agree that priorities is something we also may want to consider.
So I would say: let's finalize the UCs list,
then we can try to split them in strong, moderate and mild interest as was  
done here (for example)
  http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/live/requirements.html#section-prioritization


>
> I think it is a good idea to not lose use cases that require new  
> technology and I agree with partitioning the discussions. I think the TF  
> should first address how we expose existing HN protocols.
>
Once again, I hope that my proposed solution, i.e. to have 2 separate  
deliverables:
1. (neutral) use cases
2. "implementation notes"

addresses both needs.
I don't think one is more important than the other actually,
but I can understand there are different priorities for different  
people/companies, that's why I'm trying to suggest a solution that address  
both problems.

/g


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software - Sweden

Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 16:42:38 UTC