- From: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:54:19 +0100
- To: public-device-apis@w3.org
- Message-ID: <50B4FE4B.5070104@telecom-paristech.fr>
Hi Rich, Do you not see that your recommandation makes it impossible to distinguish between the same service offered by multiple devices ? As far as I know, there is no obligation to have a different serviceID for two services of the same type on two different devices. Worse: I have started the Intel network light twice on my PC, and both instances of the switchPower service are called *.001. This one may be a bug, but I am not sure. If you want to hide the device name, create a hash or something like that, but *either the id or the name attribute of your service object HAVE to be constructed as different for two or more services of the same type running on different devices.* Otherwise, there is no way to distinguish them. Best regards JC On 23/11/12 16:10 , Rich Tibbett wrote: > Hi Jean-Claude, > > Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote: >> I am working on a platform that will have one same service running on >> all devices. >> When discovering that service with the NSD API, the applications gets an >> array of NetworkService objects and want to discriminate between all of >> these. >> Because this is on top of UPnP, and UPnP only has serviceID and >> serviceType, in my implementation of the NSD API, I wondered what to put >> in the service "name". >> Now, I believe that the service "name" should contain the name of the >> device, so that the application can discriminate between all the >> services in the array above. > > This is the purpose of the NetworkService.id attribute. > >> Or should I rely on looking into the hostname part of the "url" >> attribute (I would find this ugly) ? >> Any hint, Rich ? What is your implementation doing ? >> Should the spec be more specific about what is the "name" of the >> NetworkService object ? > > The specification currently says to assign the serviceId from the UPnP > Device Descriptor File's service entry as the name attribute [1]. This > is the same as we are currently doing in our prototype implementation > [2]. > > There's a privacy issue here to exposing anything else in the .name > attribute. There are a few other areas that we need to tighten up here > wrt privacy based on feedback we've received so far. I hope to provide > an update on this soon. > > Thanks, > > Rich > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-discovery-api-20121004/#dfn-processing-a-upnp-device-description-file > > [2] > http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/network-service-discovery-api-support-in-opera/ > > -- 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
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 17:54:53 UTC