W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > August 2011

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

From: Matt Hammond <matt.hammond@rd.bbc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:47:56 +0100
To: "Giuseppe Pascale" <giuseppep@opera.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, "Bob Lund" <B.Lund@cablelabs.com>
Message-ID: <op.v0zv5602mko9fo@r44116>
Likewise - looks good to me.

Matt

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 22:33:48 +0100, Bob Lund <B.Lund@cablelabs.com> wrote:

>
>
>> -----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/


-- 
| Matt Hammond
| Research Engineer, BBC R&D, Centre House, London
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 21:49:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:07 UTC