Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Comments on "Application Communication" requirement

I strongly support this clarification about direct communication.
Best regards
JC

On 22/8/11 16:44 , Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:20:43 +0200, Matt Hammond 
> <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Apologies for this being a little later than I originally intended: as I
>> mentioned in last week's conf call, I have a comment regarding the
>> "Application Communication" requirement.
>>
>> Would it be helpful to clarify that this requirement is specifically
>> intended to enable direct communication between applications? This would
>> be to distinguish it from an implementation that (for example) sent all
>> communications through a cloud based relay or proxying service?
>>
>> For example: "Conforming specifications should provide a means for
>> applications to exchange messages directly via the home network with 
>> other
>> applications running on a different user agent in the home network."
>>
>
> Hi Matt,
> thanks for raising this in writing.
> I agree that several (all?) of the use cases we have discussed require 
> (preferably) a direct communication. I think this is pretty 
> uncontroversial and could add it right away to the requirement document.
> Some of the use cases could actually be covered by an indirect 
> communication mechanism as well, so probably also that would be in 
> scope. On other end such a mechanism may either not need (additional) 
> standardization or fall back to the a different discussion about which 
> services could be standardized.
>
> So in short I'm fine to re-word the requirement as you suggested if 
> nobody objects.
>
> /g
>
>> regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
>


-- 
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 Monday, 22 August 2011 15:05:21 UTC