Hello, I have some concerns with the top-down methodology used to document HNTF requirements. While the HNTF draft requirements do not appear to be defective, they are very high-level and it is difficult to unambiguously determine whether the draft requirements fully map the requirements that would be generated by a bottom-up requirements review of the submitted use-cases. I previously submitted a 1st pass at such a derivation. See 2011-07-25 [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Issue and Requirements Summary posting. Here are a few examples of inconsistencies between the submissions. Regards, Russell Berkoff Samsung ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HNTF requirements do not make a clear distinction between playable media and non-media metadata such as EPG data, Channel Lineups. GENERIC UPnP ISSUE-26 User-Agent supports an application which can list EPG data provided by a home-network device HNTF requirements do not clearly indicate that other features of home network media renderers may be controlled. GENERIC UPnP ISSUE-28 User-Agent supports an application which can control presentation on home-network Media Rendering devices such as alternate audio track selection, Picture-in-Picture, Closed Captioning, brightness, volume, etc. HNTF requirements do not clearly describe non-media transport applications of services. This is clear in ISSUE-4 but was not adequately captured in the requirements. GENERIC UPnP ISSUE-30 (not merged with ISSUE-4) User-Agent supports an application which can control generic home-network device whose function may not be fully standardized. This may include new web applications such as E-Health, Remote Provisioning and Home Energy Management.Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 05:01:47 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:08 UTC