- From: Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:58:47 +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>
Ah, I see - yes discovery is probably already covered. I'm happy with what you propose. many thanks Matt On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:15:02 +0100, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:59:30 +0200, Matt Hammond > <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: > >> 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." >> >> > There is a separate section/requirement for discovery. > As is phrased now the requirement about discovery mention both services > and "application exposing services": > > http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Service_Discovery > > *** > Service Discovery: > Conforming specifications should provide a means for applications to > discover devices and applications in the home network which advertise > services. Details of the advertising protocol are out of scope for this > document and the type and number of supported discovery protocols are > user agent dependent. Nevertheless conforming specifications should > provide a means for application to identify the type of discovered > services that are available and to search for services of a specific > type. > *** > > I think is just a matter of semantics here: is an application that is > discoverable implicitly "exposing a service"? If so, then we may not > need a new requirement; if not, we may want to separate > discovery/communication of applications from discovery/communication of > services. > > Honestly I don't have a strong opinion. One reason why we may want to > split this in 2 requirements could be that app-2-app discovery and > communication could probably generate slightly different requirements if > compared to app-2-service discovery & communication when going into the > actual specification work. > > In short I see 2 options: > #1 we keep the requirement as quote above > #2 we add to the requirement above another one that could look like this: > > *** > Application Discovery: > Conforming specifications should provide a means for applications > running in different user-agents to discover each other directly via the > home network. Details of the advertising protocol are out of scope for > this document. > *** > > I would propose to go for option #2. > > /g > >> >> 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 10:59:51 UTC