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

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:13:38 +0200, Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com> wrote:

> 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."
>
As discussed I changed this into

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

http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Service_communication

/g

> 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
>>
>
>


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software - Sweden

Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 15:08:50 UTC