Re: removal of question marks in gap analysis

Hi Sheau,

Thanks a lot :) Comments below

> --------------------
> Column F Web Storage:
> The specifications appear to be work-in-progress. It contains several
> policy-orieted statements. There are not many technology that has been
> codified in this spec. The following analysis is made based on the
> assumption that these policy statements will eventually be codified in the
> form of implementable standards.
> 
> The Storage interface has two attributes (sessionStorage and localStorage)
> that are suitable to support some of our requirements.
> 
> 
> Requirement ³Local Network Service Protection Mechanism²
> Comments:
> - The Web Storage policy statements on Privacy (6 Privacy) addresses many
> of the security issues, mostly associated with user data.
> 
> - our TF requirements should be included.
> Recommend: change to "X" (Red)

Agree


> 
> Requirement: Media Content Protection (On/Offline)
> Comments:
> - The Web Storage policy statements on Privacy (6 Privacy) addresses many
> of the security issues, mostly associated with user data.
> - our TF requirements should be included.
> Recommend: change to "X" (Red)
> 
> 

Agree

> -----------
> Column M Messaging API
> Requirement: Search
> Comments:
> The Messaging APIs "defines a System Level API which offers a simple
> interface to get access to mobile messaging services. A typical use case
> of the Messaging API is the implementation of a messaging client
> application that allows the user to send SMS and MMS messages as well as
> to access and manage the received SMS and MMS messages.²
> 
> - Some simple searches are supported.
> - Additional (more sophisticated) search for media content need to be
> defined (by whom?).
> - Seems out of scope of Messaging API to support such level of search as
> needed by our requirement.
> Recommend: change to ³NA² (Blank).
> 
> 

Agree but we should keep track that we need to define these media content search somewhere?


> -------------
> Column O Manifest for Web App
> 
> Requirement: ³Service Synchronization Mechanism²
> Comments:
> - May be supported by way of the required_features member to signal the
> mechanism used for service sync.
> Recommend: change to "X" (Red)
> 

Agre

> 
> Requirement: ³Service Information in Push Notifications²
> Comments:
> - Manifest member fields may be used to compose Service Information
> - There may be additional information not covered in Web Manifest member
> fields that are necessary for this requirement.
> Recommend: change to "X" (Red)

Agree

> 
> Requirement: ³Media Content Protection On/Offline²
> Comments:
> - Manifest has permission field that specifies simple access control
> (read/write, read-only, etc.)
> - Further discussion needed if Content Protection mechanism choices need
> to be visible at Manifest level, and if so, additional fields to be
> defined in the Web Manifest.
> - However, this may take things further out of scope of Manifest.
> Recommend: change to ³blank² NA.
> 

Agree


Let’s wait until wednesday’s call if there are additional comments before making the switch to your proposed resolutions

Regards
JC

Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 09:23:52 UTC