Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Priorities for requirements

my comments inline

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:46:17 +0200, Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com> wrote:
>>      1.7.3.5 Time-synchronization
> While I understand this is viewed as a very important feature, I think the control protocol to exchange time synchronization information and the application logic to make use of this information are both outside the scope of HNTF.

Agree that the control protocol is out of scope. On the other hand the ability to cover this requirement/usecase can have an impact on architectural decisions when discussing a generic message exchanging mechanisms between applications.

Is your proposal to drop the requirement or change it? If you think the current text is ambiguous could you provide some alternative text?

>>
>> The requirements listed above focus on enabling applications to utilise
>> existing home network services.  The remaining requirements all enable
>> use cases and scenarios that are of great interest, but could be
>> considered a "next step" of making it possible for applications to
>> advertise and/or offer services. I therefore would consider these to be
>> of lower priority.
>>
>>      1.7.2.5 Services Advertisement
> I see this as high priority. If you don't have service advertisement I don't see how one does service discovery.
>

I think the kind of service advertisement discussed here is "an application exposing a service". This is also in my opinion a less "urgent" use case since the primary usecase would be to discover traditional services.




/g

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

Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 15:24:55 UTC