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

Clarke, Russell,
your point is quite clear and I don't object to it.
So let's try to be practical and address the issue.

Can you tell me if my proposed solution, that is

- design goals mentioning UPnP [1]
- generic use case
- mentioning existing technology in the analysis/comment part of the Use  
case

works for you and solve your concerns?
If not, can you point out possible changes?


/g


On Wed, 25 May 2011 19:51:58 +0200, Clarke Stevens  
<C.Stevens@cablelabs.com> wrote:

> This may be a matter of perspective and terminology. I definitely agree  
> with Russell that whatever we do must work with existing UPnP/DLNA  
> devices. Working with existing devices is the whole point. However, I  
> think it must be flexible enough that it also works with other existing  
> and emerging device networks (e.g. Bonjour, Bluetooth, etc.)
>
> -Clarke
>
> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org  
> [mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Russell Berkoff
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:11 AM
> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
> Cc: Giuseppe Pascale; Kazuyuki Ashimura
> Subject: 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<mailto: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


-- 
Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software - Sweden

Received on Thursday, 26 May 2011 08:42:45 UTC