RE: FW: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Use Cases for UPnP/DLNA

Hello,
 
We consider support of (unmodified) UPnP/DLNA devices a requirement rather than a possible implementation approach.
 
I dont necessarily wish to preclude other solutions that may provide new/additional functionality, however many UPnP/DLNA devices are already deployed in the eco-system and our expectation is that these devices will work within any proposed HNTF framework.

Regards,
Russell Berkoff
Samsung 

________________________________

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura [mailto:ashimura@w3.org]
Sent: Wed 5/25/2011 3:33 AM
To: Giuseppe Pascale
Cc: Russell Berkoff; public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Subject: Re: FW: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Use Cases for UPnP/DLNA



On 05/25/2011 06:59 PM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 21:57:32 +0200, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Russel,
>>
>> I think there are two possible options:
>>
>> option 1: you separate your description into the following
>> two pieces:
>> 1. generic description on the use case itself
>> 2. detail of possible implementations and/or examples
>> like existing standards, e.g., DLNA/UPnP
>>
>> option 2: you simply make your use case a "specific kind of
>> use case" in our use case document
>>
>> My personal preference is option 1 above :)
>>
>> Russel, Giuseppe and others, what do you think?
>>
> As I mentioned during the call, I would prefer the following approach:
>
> 1. usecases should be technology neutral as much as it make sense
> (i.e. mention a technology only when is essential part of the
> usecase)
> 2. additional requirement for specific technologies to be supported
> can be added later, mainly as design goals
> (in fact, there is already a deisgn goal to support UPnP, see [1]
>
> So my suggestion would be:
> - re write the use case (actually splitting it in several usecases)
>   from a user centric perspective and without explicitly mention
>   UPnP/DLNA
> - as "comment" of the use cases you could mention that UPnP (and
>   maybe you can mention other protocols as well) is currently used
>   to cover that use case in some deployment scenarios
>
> So in short, I'm fine to keep the information in, just propose to
> have a better split.

Thanks a lot for your clarification, Giuseppe!  I think your
suggestion is reasonable (and my option 1 is kind of similar to your
suggestion :)

Russell and others, what do you think?

Maybe we should add some note to the TF charter [2], the TF charter
template [3] and the proposal procedure [4] as well about this
rule/guideline.

[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Charter
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Use_Cases_Template
[4] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF#Procedures

Thanks,

Kazuyuki

> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements#Design_Goals
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Kazuyuki
>>
>>
>> On 05/25/2011 04:40 AM, Russell Berkoff wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> On the 5/24 HNTF call it was suggested to remove DLNA/UPnP from a submitted use-case.
>>> I have no particular objections. However, I do have a concern about existing deployed UPnP/DLNA devices that customers would like to have supported.
>>> I would suggest that we include a use-case that directly requires support of existing (and future) UPnP/DLNA devices.
>>> Regards,
>>> Russell Berkoff
>>> Samsung Electronics