W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > June 2014

[discovery] Network Service Discovery and Web & TV feedback: follow up & additional questions

From: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 11:04:52 -0400
Message-Id: <13DDA110-6B3F-49CB-8AE8-2C18B31C507F@fjhirsch.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, ext Pascale Giuseppe <giuseppep@opera.com>, matt.hammond@bbc.co.uk
To: W3C APIs WG Device <public-device-apis@w3.org>, public-web-and-tv@w3.org
[cross-posted intentionally]

Giuseppe, all

In April I sent a request to the Web & TV Interest group for feedback related to Network Service Discovery [1]. I believe the essence of the request was captured in your minutes of 16 April [2] and the follow up from Daniel Davis [3], (slightly paraphrased):

* Does NSD meet the original requirements? http://www.w3.org/TR/hnreq/

* How much interest and support is there for Network Service Discovery?

* Are device manufacturers willing to support CORS in order to enable NSD support?

* Are stakeholders willing to work with user agent vendors for implementation?

* What changes are needed if any?

Matt shared a response [4] that the BBC is "working to ensure CORS support is implemented by HbbTV 2.0 devices for protocols that may be communicated with by companion devices across the home network”.  What is the degree of support for this effort, and what time frame is expected?

Peter Lanigan  of the Smart TV Alliance indicated plans [5] to reference the Network Service Discovery specification. He noted that having both CORS and white-listing addresses security requirements, that it is necessary to have something like this for application developers and that there are proof of concept implementations. I should point out that the editors draft is currently a work in progress, so care should be taken referencing it until the draft advances. 

I also observed in the minutes the view that browser implementer support may be required (though I note extensions might also be an interim possibility)

At this point there is one additional important question to ask:

Have you considered alternatives to Network Service Discovery and how much interest are they receiving? In particular, the Named WebSockets proposal [6] offers an alternative that seems to separate concerns cleanly - using ZeroConf to enable name discovery and then WebSockets to communicate once names are established,  resulting in a relatively simple specification (Rich can add more if better explanation is needed). Use of names might also help with the issue we’ve noted in DAP related to privacy and exposing local network identifiers.

There has also been a thread on the Mozilla browser development list suggesting that building network discovery using a UDP socket approach might be preferable to the NSD specification [7], 

If anyone has more to add  regarding the status of Network Service Discovery with respect to the  Web & TV work, or regarding security, adoption and alternatives, please share on the lists.


regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair DAP

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014Apr/0025.html

[2] http://www.w3.org/2014/04/16-webtv-minutes.html#item02

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014Apr/0032.html

[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014Apr/0033.html

[5] shared by Giuseppe,  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014May/0009.html

[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2014May/0032.html

[7] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=914579
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 15:05:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:21 UTC