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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giuseppe Pascale [mailto:giuseppep@opera.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 3:24 PM
> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org; Matt Hammond; Bob Lund
> Subject: Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Comments on "Application Communication"
> requirement
> 
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:24:04 +0200, Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > So the two requirements are:
> >
> > 1.6.2.1
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Se

> > rvice_Discovery
> > 1.6.3.9
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Ap

> > plication_communication
> >
> > Correct? If so, looks good.
> >
> 
> Well to sum up at the end of the discussion we have the requirements
> above plus these additional ones
> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Appl

> ication_Discovery
> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Serv

> ice_communication

OK - fine with me.

Bob
> 
> /g
> 
> > 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#A

> >> ppl
> >> 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_Requirement

> >> >> s#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_Requirem

> >> >>>>> ent 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_Require

> >> >>>>>> men
> >> >>>>>> 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
> 
> 
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 21:34:57 UTC