- From: Bob Lund <B.Lund@CableLabs.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:24:04 -0600
- To: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
So the two requirements are: 1.6.2.1 http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Service_Discovery 1.6.3.9 http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Application_communication Correct? If so, looks good. Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: Giuseppe Pascale [mailto:giuseppep@opera.com] > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 7:30 AM > To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org; Bob Lund; Matt Hammond > Subject: Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Comments on "Application Communication" > requirement > > I merged the new requirement > http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Appl > ication_communication > > /g > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:58:47 +0200, Matt Hammond > <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: > > > 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#S > >> ervice_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_Requirement > >>>>> s#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_Requiremen > >>>>>> ts#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 16:25:19 UTC