- From: Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:59:30 +0100
- To: "Jean-Claude Dufourd" <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, "Bob Lund" <B.Lund@cablelabs.com>, "Giuseppe Pascale" <giuseppep@opera.com>
I think you are right - this needs separating into two requirements. I believe that what Bob originally suggested regarding "discovery" might apply "application communication" too. For example: "Application communication: Conforming specifications should provide a means for applications running in different user-agents to discover each other and exchange messages directly via the home network." many thanks Matt On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 23:31:05 +0100, 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? > > /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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- | Matt Hammond | Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 10:00:34 UTC