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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 00:31:05 +0200, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 21:49:33 +0200, Matt Hammond
> <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Definitely agree with Bob that this requirement should be expressed in
>> terms of how there needs to be discovery in order to initiate
>> communication.
>>
>> Thinking about the use of the term 'services': should this be phrased in
>> terms of 'applications' throughout, rather than 'services'?
>> Communication with services is already covered by other requirements.
>> This particular requirement originated from the "Local Link for Web
>> Applications" use case[1]:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#U14:_Local_Link_of_Web_Applications
>>
>
> Agree. It seems to me we need 2 requirements. We can leave the one about
> "service communication" as phrased below, plus I would add the following:
>
> "Application communication: Conforming specifications should provide a
> means for applications running in different user-agents to exchange
> messages directly via the home network."
>
> Bob, Matt, what do you think?
>
I went ahead and added (back) the requirement about direct application communication that is extracted from  "Local Link for Web Applications" use case

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

This is in addition to the service communication requirement. I believe they are 2 separate requirements.

If you have objection or suggestions for improvements let me know.

/g

>> regards
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:08:04 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale
>> <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 Monday, 29 August 2011 09:37:13 UTC