ISSUE-24 - Application IDs

Hello Igarashi-san,
 
I think I have an issue with application-ids and private application interfaces as implied in ISSUE-24 and your clarifications.
 
1. Who is the registrar for these applications IDs? Even if the ID is (automatically) derived from a MD-5 fingerprint of the interface description, the semantics may differ between device implementation even if the method and parameter types for the interface are identical.
 
2. How are application specific (private) interfaces helpful to general interoperability. Sure I can write proprietary Sony Device and have Sony specific applications to communicate with it? Is that approach generally helpful?
 
UPnP has taken the approach of defining applications APIs that are expected to be supported across vendors with clearly stated semantics and syntax. It doesn't sound that ISSUE-24 is following that model and that design choice  seems problematic.
 
Regards,
Russell Berkoff
Samsung