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

[HOME_NETWORK_TF] Minutes - 2011-08-30 teleconference call

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:35:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4E5D0334.50601@w3.org>
To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>

The minutes of today's call are available at:

... and pasted as raw text below. No more calls expected by F2F in Hollywood.


Home Networking Task Force Teleconference

30 Aug 2011


       [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


           Kazuyuki, giuseppe, francois, MattH, Juhani, Clarke,
           Igarashi, JeanClaude_Dufourd, Bob, Panze, Jerry, Narm,
           Russell, Steven_Wright




      * [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
    ... 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
    ... 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

    Igarashi: OK, I think Application communication should be higher

    Giuseppe: One way is to discuss this and see if we can reach
    ... 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

    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)


    <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
    ... 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

    Clarke: fine if you include an informative link to reference the

    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
    ... 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

    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
    ... 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_.28IG_report_review.29

    Giuseppe: no more calls by F2F, we'll continue discussions on the
    ... Thanks everybody! Bye!

    [call adjourned]

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 15:35:41 UTC

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