[HOME_NETWORK_TF] Home Network Technologies

Hi Giuseppe,

I certainly didn’t intend to ignore or preclude W3C provisioning of alternative Home Network technologies.

However, phrases like "generic" and "also works with" could imply something more (such as convergence or interoperability of HN technologies). The use cases (and ecosystem impact) for doing this kind of convergence at a spec level (vs a device bridges between multiple HN technologies) would need to be considered very carefully. 

UPnP (for example) has built-up device models for various HN things like DVRs, EPG and Media Servers and Media Renderers over the last 10+ years. Is there a suggestion that DAP is going to try to "boil the ocean" on this?

Regards,
Russell Berkoff
Samsung Electronics

-----Original Message-----
From: Giuseppe Pascale [mailto:giuseppep@opera.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 7:43 AM
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org; Russell Berkoff
Subject: Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Timing of this TF (was: New TF on Home Networking - Call for Participants)

Russell,
thanks for you UPnP overview!

Let me clarify though that, while UPnP is an important protocol to support as mentioned in the current requirement docuemtn draft [1], we should consider being more generic and working on something that works with UPnP but also with other protocols.
At least this is my opinion, happy to read other people comments on this.

Once (if) we agree on this, next step is which usecases we have in mind and which approach we want to follow.

even if this group is not going to produce a specification, is important to discuss possible way to address the requirements since these would be a valuable input for a working group.

One last comment

On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 04:35:40 +0200, Russell Berkoff <r.berkoff@sisa.samsung.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> There are a number of folks in the DAP WG that should fully understand 
> UPnP protocols. However, it's not clear that the DAP WG currently 
> deals with the usages UPnP is intended to address.
>
This is correct, so the discussion here is: do we (and DAP members) think that the requirements we are drafting (or maybe just some of them) are of interest for DAP and can be discussed there?
If the answer is no, we will have to look into another WG (new or existing). If the answer is yes we need to discuss which of these requirements are of mutual interest and propose to DAP WG to add those requirements to their charter.

Regards,
/g

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Design_Goals


> I've provided a very brief description of low-level UPnP protocols 
> (aka
> UDA):
>
> UPnP in a Nutshell
>
> Model:
> Remote Client/Server Programming (Remote Procedure Calls)
>
> Hierarchy:
> Device/Service Description (DDP) -> Devices -> Services +-> Actions -> 
> Arguments
>                                                         +-> Variables 
> Discovery (UPnP Devices/Services):
> SSDP
>
> Invocation Model:
> SOAP
>
> Eventing:
> GENA
>
> Glossary:
> GENA - General Event Notification Architecture SOAP - Simple Object 
> Access Protocol SSDP - Simple Service Discovery Protocol UDA - UPnP 
> Device Architecture - Describes the low-level UPnP Discovery and 
> Eventing protocols.
> UPnP Device/Service Description - XML documents describing UPnP 
> Devices and UPnP Services UPnP Device - An instance of one or more 
> UPnP Services UPnP Service - A collection of zero or more UPnP Actions 
> and UPnP Variables UPnP Action - An API (executed remotely between a 
> client and server) UPnP Arguments - Parameters and results from UPnP 
> actions.
>
> Using this common framework, UPnP defines various Device [Models] such 
> as Media Servers and Media Renderer that allow for selection and 
> distribution of media within the home.
>
> Regards,
> Russell Berkoff
> Samsung Electronics
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:46 AM
> To: 이현재
> Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Timing of this TF (was: New TF on Home 
> Networking - Call for Participants)
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 31, 2011, at 10:26 , 이현재 wrote:
>> DAP has highly focus on mobile phone API As far as I know.
>
> That's actually not at all the case. DAP is focused on APIs that 
> expose a service of the underlying device, which may be any kind of 
> device, mobile or otherwise. Nothing that we do is in any way 
> mobile-specific or even particularly mobile-oriented. Of course, all 
> the APIs work in a mobile environment, but that's a requirement for all W3C WGs nowadays.
>
>> Would you please let me know some key questions about current status 
>> of DAP?
>>
>>  1> Does DAP have TV manufacturer expert or UPnP expert inside?
>
> You can see a list of participants at:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=43696

>
> As you can see it does include some TV companies, and of course we can 
> always welcome more (though DAP would probably not be the right place 
> for TV-specific technology, rather for technology that TV use cases 
> require but that are more broadly useful).
>
>>  2> Does DAP have design principle of Device API? If so, could you 
>> explain the general rule?
>
> The core, driving principle is the creation of APIs that are secure 
> and privacy-aware in a regular browsing environment. It may not seem 
> like much but that rule is sufficient to arbitrate a lot of debate in 
> API creation. Beyond that, it's just good, clean JS APIs.
>
>>  3> What Browser vendors have interest in implementing Device API?
>
> I cannot speak for companies that I do not represent. I have received 
> indications of interest from several browser vendors; I think that 
> this will be clearer after the rechartering.
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/

>
>
>
>


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

Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 23:33:41 UTC