Re: [[HOME_NETWORK_TF] Priority of Application Communications

I've done an attempt to rephrase this section to avoid misunderstanding on  
the importance of direct communication requirements.
Igarashi, Matt, all, could you check if you think the new text is fine?


On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:21:11 +0200, Giuseppe Pascale <>  

> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 11:23:48 +0200, Matt Hammond  
> <> wrote:
>> Hi Igarashi,
>> I agree that these requirements enable a wide range of applications. I
>> would certainly hope that these requirements be discussed at the next
>> stage. I also have an interest in enabling these kinds of applications.
>> My concern would be that we could end up with nearly all our  
>> requirements
>> labelled "high priority". Will this make it difficult for Working Groups
>> to determine what subsets they can usefully tackle?
> I have the same concern. Note also that if a WG decide to take an  
> approach that deals with both requirements in one solution than you  
> basically do not have this problem.
> On the other and if the technical discussion ends up requiring 2  
> different solutions the question would then be: is more important to  
> deal with existing devices or with a completely new approach?
>> I would not mind if they are reclassified as "high priority" if there  
>> is a
>> way we can still assist WGs in that decision process. Would it be
>> sufficient to group them and frame them with some explanation - perhaps
>> based on your words below?
> Should I do an attempt to remove the word "High priority" and "Low  
> priority" (that could be misleading) and just replace it with groups of  
> requirements with some explanation of their "different way of being  
> important" ?
> /g
>> regards
>> Matt
>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 09:40:42 +0100, Igarashi, Tatsuya
>> <> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> As I commented in the last teleconference, I think that the requirement
>>> of Application Communications should be high priority.
>>> I believe that it is important for the Web echo system to take in
>>> account of Application Communication via home network as well as  
>>> Service
>>> Communication. As nobody denies, the HTML5 in wide sense is not just a
>>> presentation language, but also a application platform. If the W3C
>>> standardizes a solution that an application discovers and communicates
>>> services running on other devices on the home network. The solution
>>> should also consider the case of the communication with applications
>>> running on other devices. I think the direct link communications via
>>> home network can leverage the web technologies and will create new  
>>> types
>>> of application which mashes up Web and home networked devices.
>>> Actually I have a concern that only service discovery and service
>>> communication will be discussed at next step due to the priority. Since
>>> both use cases are similar, I suggest that WG will discuss a technical
>>> solutions by taking in count of both of requirements in the same
>>> priority. The approach will avoid the solutions will differ completely.
>>> I have realize that the a set of requirements should be high priority.
>>> #Application
>>> communication<>,#Application
>>> Discovery<>,
>>> #Services
>>> Advertisement<>,
>>> Any question and comment?
>>> Thank you.
>>> -***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***--***---***---***-
>>> Tatsuya
>>> Igarashi (<>)
>>> NS Development Dept. Technology Development Group
>>> Sony Corporation
>>> (Voice) +81-3-5435-3252 (Fax) +81-3-5435-3274

Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software

Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2011 10:25:34 UTC