RE: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Home Network Technologies


Hi Matt,

DLNA 1.0 is about two-box pull model: on one side you have a Digital Media Player (a client in your description) and on the other side you have a Digital Media Server (a rendering device in your description). DMP discovers and then browses DMS, and can request one of the browsed items to be played. The only difference with your model is that this the DMP that based on the information exposed by the DMS, decides wherever it can play the content.

However, DLNA does allow to implement the reverse scenario (server side control) although needing a more complex description than above but I do not want to be cumbersome if nobody is interested in.

For sake of completeness, I refer to your paragraph reproduced hereafter: "We simplify the model down to a rendering device (the server) and client. The client can ask the server what content it can play and can request one of those items be played. It is left up to the server to determine where and how it can obtain content (eg. via UPnP, broadcast, local storage etc)."

Regards,
Olivier Carmona


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Hammond [mailto:matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk]
Sent: mercredi 6 avril 2011 13:10
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org; Olivier Carmona
Cc: Russell Berkoff; Giuseppe Pascale
Subject: Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Home Network Technologies

Hi Oliver,

> The attempt of creating a new home networking effort would not only be
> boiling the ocean again (your server / renderer approach below is rehash
> of DLNA 1.0, quite outdated indeed), but even more concerning, I do not
> see why you would leave aside an ecosystem of 440 million DLNA devices.

I'm not very familiar with DLNA 1.0 - as I only have seen more recent
versions. Could you describe in more detail where you think the
similarities are? If DLNA underwent a radical architectural change (moving
away from the approach I described to what it has now), it could be
informative to know if there were particular reasons for it.

In the possible scenario I described, many of those existing DLNA devices
would be still involved. Content discovery and streaming of the media
would be left up to the server/renderer to handle for itself. Therefore,
such devices might well use existing technologies such as UPnP/DLNA to do
this, in order to not leave aside that existing ecosystem of devices that
can serve content.

I would see home networking API as providing a more abstracted control
layer; and devices using existing technologies, as described, to carry out
the requests made.



regards


Matt

--
| Matt Hammond
| Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/



__________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6018 (20110406) __________

Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com




__________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 6018 (20110406) __________

Le message a été vérifié par ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 01:28:26 UTC