RE: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Home Network Technologies

Please see inline below

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:public-web-and-tv-
>] On Behalf Of Igarashi, Tatsuya
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 6:48 AM
> To: Giuseppe Pascale;; Russell Berkoff
> Subject: RE: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Home Network Technologies
> Hi Giuseppe and Russell,
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > > Hi Giuseppe,
> > Hi Russell, thanks for your comment and let me clarify my point
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > I agree. My point was that the analysis should start looking at a
> > wider scope than just UPnP, looking if some convergence is possible
> > and at which level. One possible outcome could be that this
> > convergence is possible just in same areas or is not possible at all.
> >
> > I would encourage TF participants to share their opinion on this
> point.
> >
> In my understanding, the TF will not discuss the provision of
> alternative Home Network technologies. Rather, it will discuss a W3C
> standard of home network API that an web application controls the device
> compliant with existing Home Network technologies.

I think the ultimate goal should be an API that will work with the home network technologies that are expected to be in use.
> It is preferable that the home network API is very generic and can apply
> any Home Network technologies, but the W3C solution has to specify a
> basic framework, such as, device discovery, for interoperability. I
> think that the UPnP industrial standard is a good starting point for the
> TF discussions, though any other Home Network technologies would be
> excluded for the discussion.

I hope the previous sentence was intended to say "... though any other Home Network technologies would __not__ be excluded ...". For industry, and W3C, acceptance, I think it is important to support those home networking technologies being adopted in the market place.

> In terms of the phases like, "generic" and "also works with",  I
> supposed that any UPnP device-types and service-types should be
> supported by the API if the solution is based on UPnP.  If there are the
> requirements specific to a certain UPnP device-type, such as MediaServer
> and MediaRender,  it would be another discussion from the basic
> framework.

We have done some initial investigation that suggests that device and service discovery for multiple home network technologies could be exposed in a generic way. More investigation is needed to determine if service specific actions can be exposed in a common way. For this reason, it appears to make sense to think about a basic framework for discovery and a more extended framework related to service actions.

Bob Lund
> Thank you.
> -***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***--***---***---***-
> Tatsuya Igarashi ( NS Development Dept.
> Technology Development Group Sony Corporation
> (Voice) +81-3-5435-3252 (Fax) +81-3-5435-3274

Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 16:28:49 UTC