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

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