- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:35:16 +0200
- To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2011/08/30-webtv-minutes.html
... and pasted as raw text below. No more calls expected by F2F in Hollywood.
Thanks,
Francois
-----
Home Networking Task Force Teleconference
30 Aug 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Aug/0148.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/30-webtv-irc
Attendees
Present
Kazuyuki, giuseppe, francois, MattH, Juhani, Clarke,
Igarashi, JeanClaude_Dufourd, Bob, Panze, Jerry, Narm,
Russell, Steven_Wright
Regrets
Chair
Giuseppe
Scribe
francois
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Security section
2. [6]Requirement on Application Communication
3. [7]Content Protection
4. [8]Recommendations and categorization of requirements
5. [9]Remote UI Overview (ISSUE-48)
6. [10]Remaining open issues
7. [11]Next Steps
* [12]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Security section
Giuseppe: Proposal from me highlighting some of the security
problems the use cases can raise.
... Got some comments. I tried to clarify the text.
... If no further comments, I'll merge it into requirements doc.
[none heard]
Giuseppe: ok, will do then
Requirement on Application Communication
Giuseppe: following mailing-list discussion, split requirements into
2.
... If no other comment, we can move on.
Matt: Happy with the result.
Giuseppe: OK, good.
Content Protection
Giuseppe: discussion last time on whether we should drop the
requirements or update the text. Bob and Russell wanted to propose
text but didn't see text.
Bob: I haven't had time to send text.
Giuseppe: We can probably review that during the IG F2F. We can
leave the requirements in and review it during the F2F then.
Bob: fine.
Recommendations and categorization of requirements
Giuseppe: I tried to summarize feedback I got on the list.
Matt: Pretty happy with what you've done there.
Giuseppe: I wrote a section called "Next Steps", I invite people to
review that section.
... DAP group already has device discovery in its charter so next
step is to propose requirements there and create another WG if and
only if some of them are not taken up by DAP.
... Then I categorized requirements into higher and lower
priorities.
... based on what we discussed last week.
Igarashi: How do you handle divergences of opinions on priorities?
Giuseppe: What is there is supposed to be the consensus of the
discussions we already had. I encourage you to review the text and
raise concerns.
... If there are objections, we can record them in the requirements
doc.
Igarashi: OK, I think Application communication should be higher
priority.
Giuseppe: One way is to discuss this and see if we can reach
agreement.
... Otherwise, we'll just record disagreement.
Igarashi: [comment I missed on Application communication and other
requirements priorities]
Bob: Could you summarize the issue?
Giuseppe: issue is should we move "Application communication" to
high priority?
[scribe missed gist of discussion here, Igarashi-san, feel free to
record your points down on IRC!]
Giuseppe: I can move this in high priority list if no one objects.
Russell: In terms of UPnP, we don't recognize applications per se,
only devices, that would be difficult for us to accomodate.
Matt: the requirement could be fulfilled by different
implementations. I would not translate it into meaning UPnP has to
provide this set of functionalities.
Igashari: also, it's pretty generic, not bound to a particular
protocol.
Giuseppe: I don't think it's a big deal moving it to high priority.
Igarashi: important point. Generic that can be extended [echo heard,
scribe missed most of it again]
<kaz> +1
Giuseppe: Let's resolve it over email. Please send comments on
current text and we'll resolve this during F2F. Try to be specific
and propose text.
Remote UI Overview (ISSUE-48)
ISSUE-48?
<trackbot> ISSUE-48 -- CEA-2014 Remote UI Overview -- raised
<trackbot> [13]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/48
[13] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/48
Giuseppe: I saw some text from JC. I can go ahead and integrate that
text.
... Please send comments if needed.
... Any other comments on requirements document?
[none heard]
Remaining open issues
<kaz> [14]HNTF issues
[14] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/products/2
<kaz> issue-30?
<trackbot> ISSUE-30 -- Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network
Device Controller -- open
<trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/30
[15] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/30
Giuseppe: not sure what we should do with implementation
alternatives.
Clarke: fine if you include an informative link to reference the
proposals.
Giuseppe: OK, thanks, sounds good, we can close it then.
[comment scribe missed on adding reference link]
Giuseppe: Russell, about closing ISSUE-30?
Russell: Yes, I'm fine with that.
Close ISSUE-30
<trackbot> ISSUE-30 Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network Device
Controller closed
Giuseppe: ok, good.
Next Steps
Giuseppe: Next step is to circulate the requirements doc within the
whole IG.
... get feedback, address comments, and close the doc during the IG
F2F.
... In parallel to this, the co-chairs are trying to write an IG
report describing IG history and progress.
... The requirements doc would be linked from the IG report.
Russell: [question about IG report]
Giuseppe: The IG is a public group, so everyone will be able to send
comments on the doc. During the F2F, only IG participants are
allowed to attend
JeanClaude: What is the status of the implementation alternative
doc?
Giuseppe: we just said we should probably drop it. It's reflected by
the different solutions proposed by Opera, CableLabs. We should
close it as it was meant to trigger discussions (and it did).
mav: How many items remain to be addressed? You mentioned a couple.
Giuseppe: We're not looking into adding more requirements. There is
nothing pending as far as I can see. I'm expecting comments to
clarify what the text says.
... The agenda for the F2F is to review this document and approve
it, to discuss next steps, e.g. involvement within DAP, discuss
possible joint meeting at TPAC, etc.
... Then, during the F2F, we'll have another discussion at the IG
level, to see if we need to continue discussions in this TF, in
another one on another TF, things that worked out well, things that
should be improved.
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask about possible (additional?) agenda
topic idea
Giuseppe: Be prepared to share pro/cons about TF during the F2F!
Kaz: It might make sense to ask TF participants about how to form
the agenda of the IG f2f meeting.
StevenWright: question about definition about home network in
requirements doc. Restricted to IPv4? Open to IPv6?
Bob: CableLabs is planning to support IPv6.
StevenWright: perhaps worth being explicit.
Narm: does home network cover only local device, or "extended" home
networks with remote devices?
Giuseppe: home/home communications is important but we haven't
investigated it thoroughly. Idea would be to mention it as something
that requires more work.
... Could someone provide text for home network clarifications?
Clarke: Happy to.
Giuseppe: back to Kaz point. F2F points?
Igarashi: Comments on requirements could be discussed at the F2F
before it is approved.
Giuseppe: yes, this is one point of the agenda.
... I drafted an initial agenda
-> [16]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/First_F2F_Schedule Draft
F2F schedule
[16] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/First_F2F_Schedule
Giuseppe: For HNTF, next steps on standardization works, next steps
as a TF (close? continue?) and perhaps presentations of preliminary
work as we experienced in e.g. CableLabs and Opera
... [going through the remaining agenda]
... Any proposal to add to our slot?
... Agenda is on the wiki, please look at it and propose additions.
... Any other question?
... I have one comment on Media Identification, put as other
requirement.
... Not sure if it's related to what DAP is chartered to do.
Matt: depends on the level of complexity you put in media
identification. At the beginning, it was a means to get access to an
identifier that applications can use.
... Support for enabling metadata as a way to store the identifier.
Giuseppe: yes, social TV was another aspect, as you need an
identifier to be able to share it.
... Not limited to home network scenarios.
Matt: Question for the IG as a whole.
Bob: The media metadata work that's going on, does that cover what
you're talking about?
Francois: Media Annotations WG?
Bob: yes.
Clarke: But not talking about media identification per se.
Giuseppe: we should look in this WG and see if its scope overlaps
with this requirement.
Igarashi: Proposal for agenda F2F.
... Need to include feedback from workshop on home networks.
Giuseppe: yes, included in global agenda.
<kaz> [it's included in:
[17]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/First_F2F_Schedule#Main_IG_.28
IG_report_review.29]
[17] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/First_F2F_Schedule#Main_IG_.28IG_report_review.29
Giuseppe: no more calls by F2F, we'll continue discussions on the
list.
... Thanks everybody! Bye!
[call adjourned]
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 15:35:41 UTC