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

I agree but I think it should be stated in terms of access to services discovered on the home network:

"Service communication: Conforming specifications should provide a means for a client to exchange messages directly via the home network with services discovered in the home network."

Bob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-and-tv-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Dufourd
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 9:05 AM
> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
> Subject: 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 16:13:41 UTC