- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:40:01 +0200
- To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's Home Networking Task Force are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below.
A number of issues were approved during the call, check resolutions taken in the minutes.
Giuseppe will integrate them in the requirements document.
Thanks,
Francois.
-----
Home Networking Task Force Teleconference
02 Aug 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Aug/0010.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-irc
Attendees
Present
Giuseppe, Kazuyuki, MattH, Francois, David_Mays, Aizu,
Clarke_Stevens, Igarashi, Russell_Berkoff, mav
Regrets
Chair
Giuseppe
Scribe
Francois
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]TV Querying and Control
2. [6]Time Synchronization (ISSUE-21)
3. [7]Lip-Sync Accuracy Time Synchronisation (ISSUE-22)
4. [8]UPnP/DLNA ecosystem support (ISSUE-23)
5. [9]Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network Media Player
(ISSUE-26)
6. [10]Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network Media Server
(ISSUE-27)
7. [11]Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network Media
Controller (ISSUE-28)
8. [12]Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network Record
Controller (ISSUE-29)
9. [13]Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network Device
Controller (ISSUE-30)
10. [14]Next steps
11. [15]CableLabs Simplified Home Networking API Proposal
* [16]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<giuseppe> [17]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/products/2
[17] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/products/2
TV Querying and Control
<giuseppe> ISSUE-20?
<trackbot> ISSUE-20 -- TV Querying and Control -- open
<trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/20
[18] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/20
<MattH>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
ns/TVControl
[19] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/TVControl
matt: re-write proposal to better explain what could be
standardized.
... The processing engine could be incorporated or not.
... There were some questions I hope I've addressed.
giuseppe: comments on this?
... I don't have specific comments. I see different challenges. One
thing I noticed is that it does not follow the same approach as
other things we've discussed.
... Not a generic approach.
... On the use case, no problem it's fine.
... Any other comment, or can we conclude it's approved?
proposed RESOLUTION: approve ISSUE-20
RESOLUTION: approve ISSUE-20, TV Querying and Control
<scribe> ACTION: giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-20 in requirements spec
[recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Integrate ISSUE-20 in requirements
spec [on Giuseppe Pascale - due 2011-08-09].
Time Synchronization (ISSUE-21)
<MattH>
[21]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
ns/TimeSynchronisation
[21] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/TimeSynchronisation
matt: Same here, re-wrote to better explain what's up for
standardization.
... Regarding the time sync use case, the idea is to make it
possible to be able to sync the content of their own app with the
content played on the TV set.
... I believe we briefly described the prototype during the Berlin
Workshop.
... Re-focusing is to highlight the fact that it's useful for an app
to have a simple and clear API to access this type of information.
... It would be useful to have a high-level API that can enable
these kind of applications and that abstract away the possible
inconsistencies.
Russell: I object, the existing discovery protocol address these
issues, so I believe it's out of scope.
matt: I was referring to the previous situation. In the new version,
I refer to existing protocols that can be appropriate, so you're
right.
Russell: ok.
giuseppe: comments on the content of the issue?
... then we can approve this as well
RESOLUTION: Approve ISSUE-21, Time synchronization
<scribe> ACTION: giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-21 in requirements spec
[recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Integrate ISSUE-21 in requirements
spec [on Giuseppe Pascale - due 2011-08-09].
giuseppe: for some of these use cases, there could be an entity on
the network that provides the service, so not necessarily a local
API
Lip-Sync Accuracy Time Synchronisation (ISSUE-22)
<MattH>
[23]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussio
ns/LipSyncTimeSynchronisation
[23] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/LipSyncTimeSynchronisation
<giuseppe> ISSUE-22?
<trackbot> ISSUE-22 -- Lip-sync Accuracy Time Synchronisation --
open
<trackbot> [24]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/22
[24] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/22
matt: related but with emphasis on needs for precise timing
information, e.g. lip sync.
... The description here makes explicit the need to expose the
accuracy that is available so that an app can determine whether it
can do its stuff.
giuseppe: thanks, any comment on this?
... OK, let's close this as well
kaz: Matt, are you interested in not only lip-sync but also 3D, or
animation, audio frame, or other multiple modalities?
matt: I think these should be valid. We were more interested in
audio at BBC, but I can see other purpose requiring accurate timing
sync for other modality, yes.
RESOLUTION: Approve ISSUE-22, Lip-sync Accuracy Time Synchronisation
<scribe> ACTION: Giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-22 in requirements
spec. [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Integrate ISSUE-22 in requirements
spec. [on Giuseppe Pascale - due 2011-08-09].
UPnP/DLNA ecosystem support (ISSUE-23)
<giuseppe> ISSUE-23?
<trackbot> ISSUE-23 -- UPnP/DLNA ecosystem support -- open
<trackbot> [26]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/23
[26] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/23
Russell: Issue-23 is a use case to support the UPnP/DLNA ecosystem
devices as-is within an application.
... There are a large number of currently deployed UPnP/DLNA
devices, and having W3C user agents be able to support those devices
would be beneficial for both orgs as well as for users.
giuseppe: you didn't write any use case, right?
russell: right.
... It's just to generate a requirement.
... There are specific use cases which are written later on, but
this is a specific use case to require UPnP/DLNA support.
Giuseppe: no comment. Any comment?
Russell: I think there should be a requirement that maps to this
issue.
Giuseppe: OK, I can find a way to integrate that in requirements
spec.
RESOLUTION: Approve ISSUE-23, UPnP/DLNA ecosystem support
<scribe> ACTION: giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-23 in requirements
spec. [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - Integrate ISSUE-23 in requirements
spec. [on Giuseppe Pascale - due 2011-08-09].
kaz: comment on ISSUE-23. Clarify what you mean by W3C user agents?
Russell: there are conceivably user agents that may not be browsers
but something else.
kaz: In that case, W3C specification compliant user agents. W3C does
not produce user agents
Russell: yes.
Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network Media Player (ISSUE-26)
See [28]ISSUE-26
[28] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/26
Russell: question is whether it's enough to support various
protocols, or whether we need to dig up in types of services exposed
and expose e.g. media servers.
... [Going through requirements]. Requirement to list content that
matches precise criteria on a media server for instance. Playback
operation.
... View EPG data which may represent current content, also tune and
play live content, and then select and play recorded content.
Giuseppe: back to ISSUE-26, any comment?
... I don't think the use case is controversial.
... No problem with the use case itself.
... One problem I have with these use cases is that they all look
different.
... We might want to re-write them for more consistency.
Russell: I'm certainly willing to help.
... I tried to make the use cases and requirements consistent.
Giuseppe: ok.
RESOLUTION: Approve ISSUE-26, Home Network Enabled User-Agent -
Network Media Player
<scribe> ACTION: Giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-26 in requirements spec
[recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Integrate ISSUE-26 in requirements
spec [on Giuseppe Pascale - due 2011-08-09].
Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network Media Server (ISSUE-27)
See [30]ISSUE-27
[30] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/27
Russell: companion use case to previous one, to be able to serve
content.
... Media server not necessarily local, could be in the cloud.
Giuseppe: there's a specific reference to DLNA in things to
standardize.
Russell: I was just trying to clarify what the term Home Network
Media Transport Requirements might entail.
... May I just change "mainly" into "possibly"?
... It was really just meant as a clarification.
... I'll go through the use case and take that out.
Giuseppe: ok, fine.
RESOLUTION: Approve ISSUE-27, Home Network Enabled User-Agent -
Network Media Server
<scribe> ACTION: Giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-27 in requirements spec
[recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-63 - Integrate ISSUE-27 in requirements
spec [on Giuseppe Pascale - due 2011-08-09].
Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network Media Controller (ISSUE-28)
See [32]ISSUE-28
[32] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/28
Russell: provides more details about what needs to be controlled on
media that provides rendering.
... including closed captioning, camera angles, etc.
Giuseppe: same as for ISSUE-27, DLNA mention remains.
Russell: Yes, I'll go through all of these issues and adjust the
wording.
Giuseppe: ok, also approved, then.
RESOLUTION: Approve ISSUE-28, Home Network Enabled User-Agent -
Network Media Controller
<scribe> ACTION: Giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-28 in requirements spec
[recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-64 - Integrate ISSUE-28 in requirements
spec [on Giuseppe Pascale - due 2011-08-09].
Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network Record Controller (ISSUE-29)
See [34]ISSUE-29
[34] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/29
Russell: different scenarios on controlling recorder, listed on the
page.
Giuseppe: Comments?
... Approved.
RESOLUTION: Approve ISSUE-29, Home Network Enabled User-Agent -
Network Record Controller
<scribe> ACTION: Giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-29 in requirements spec
[recorded in
[35]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-65 - Integrate ISSUE-29 in requirements
spec [on Giuseppe Pascale - due 2011-08-09].
Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network Device Controller (ISSUE-30)
See [36]ISSUE-30
[36] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/30
Russell: Control of a device, which we don't know anything about.
There might be provisioning, e.g. home network management services
while upgrading firmware. There's a whole slew of device types on
top of media related services.
... This is a use case to control all sorts of devices.
Giuseppe: given that this is generic, and that we already have
approved generic use cases, does that add something?
Russell: we do have Igarashi-san application use cases. But this is
more control of non media devices on the home network.
... Usage will become increasibly important.
Giuseppe: Yes, but requirements already covered by other issue, I
think.
... High-level versus low-level.
ISSUE-14?
<trackbot> ISSUE-14 -- Document Discovering a Service -- closed
<trackbot> [37]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/14
[37] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/14
<giuseppe>
[38]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requireme
nts#U7._Application_Discovering_a_Service
[38] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#U7._Application_Discovering_a_Service
Giuseppe: The requirements doc is already updated to cover this.
Russell: I might suggest that this gets merged with issue-14,
provided there are no new requirements.
... One question that I have in mind. Is a device or service in
these use cases the same as the device in the use case I'm
providing?
... I think Jean-Claude mentioned the definition of a device as a
list of services.
... I'm a little concerned about the definition section in the
requirements doc.
Giuseppe: it's for the scope of the document.
Russell: I think we'll have to discuss devices vs. services
Giuseppe: could you provide text for the requirements document?
<scribe> ACTION: Russell to see if ISSUE-14 and ISSUE-30 can be
merged [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-66 - See if ISSUE-14 and ISSUE-30 can be
merged [on Russell Berkoff - due 2011-08-09].
Next steps
giuseppe: it would be nice to finish the document by the end of the
month.
... I'll update it so that we can review it before the f2f meeting
and approve it during the meeting.
... The idea would be to publish the requirements document, and then
to add some section in the IG report about our findings.
... What should we do with CableLabs draft proposal?
... We need to know what we're going to do with other documents such
as implementation alternatives.
Clarke: hard to understand you right now, let's do a phone call and
come up with a plan or something.
CableLabs Simplified Home Networking API Proposal
Giuseppe: question, Clarke, is what should the group do with this?
Clarke: I'd like people to comment on it, see if it meets
requirements.
<kaz> [40]Wiki
[40] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Discussions/RevisedAPI
<kaz> issue-38?
<trackbot> ISSUE-38 -- CableLabs Simplified Home Networking API
Proposal -- open
<trackbot> [41]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/38
[41] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/38
Clarke: Then look at this proposal and the one from Opera, see if
they can be aligned.
... I'm working on an update to that document, which I can publish
in the next couple of days.
Giuseppe: [chunked], include in the report?
Clarke: yes, I'd like to resolve as many obvious divergences as
possible and then include in the report.
Russell: I'm not necessarily favoring an API the way you propose
[scribe missed precise concern]
Clarke: when something is discovered, it calls a callback. I found
it useful to combine things, but you could have your user agent to
do otherwise. The basic idea of having discovery "routines" that
calls a callback is pretty generic and doesn't predict any specific
implementation.
... The same goes for request.
... If you want one callback for zeroconf, one for DLNA, etc. that's
fine.
Russell: something like REST call, does that require a callback?
Clarke: what happens is that you send a message, and when you get a
response, which is asynchronous, the callback gets called. A single
routine could handle all your REST responses, or different routines
could be used.
... Still, you send a request, then get a response.
Russell: I might suggest that you write this in "here's the usage
scenario" instead of providing an IDL, not very consistent with the
way we've approaches other use cases.
Giuseppe: The goal is more to capture how this could be implemented.
... It is not to become the specification, it's merely meant to
suggest how an API could be defined.
Russell: I suspect there is a use case knocking around in this
document. I would encourage the writing of a use case based on this
document. One concern is what happens to one device discovered with
different methods? Is there a way to say that this is the same?
... I think it raises some interesting questions.
Clarke: It's one way to implement the requirements triggered by the
other use cases. It's certainly not the only one.
... I'm uncertain how this should be communicated to any working
group that addresses these requirements.
Giuseppe: my view on this is that we need to make sure the
discussions are reflected on this document, then we can decide to
publish it along with the requirements document to the intention of
a working group.
... If it's already covered by another document, e.g. by Opera's
proposal, then maybe we can drop it.
... We need to have opinions on this.
... The same applies to the Security document, actually.
Clarke: I'll try to write something that tries to align CableLabs
and Opera's proposals.
Giuseppe: ok, running out of time, here.
[call adjourned]
<giuseppe> I hope you could hear what I was saying....
<giuseppe> I was using skype, next time I'll use the phone
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-20 in requirements spec
[recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-21 in requirements spec
[recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-22 in requirements spec.
[recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-23 in requirements spec.
[recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-26 in requirements spec
[recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-27 in requirements spec
[recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-28 in requirements spec
[recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Giuseppe to integrate ISSUE-29 in requirements spec
[recorded in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: Russell to see if ISSUE-14 and ISSUE-30 can be merged
[recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/02-webtv-minutes.html#action09]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 16:40:25 UTC