Re: Status of my Actions from Shenzhen meeting (relating to Web Intents for local network service discovery)

On 26avr. 16:12, Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
> According to what I remember from the meeting my interpretation is:
>
> * ACTION-510: Create new spec how WebIntents UPnP registration (Claes 
> Nilsson): Covers the use case for using a Web Intents enabled UA 
> supporting UPnP discovery to discover and dynamically register 
> Services in Web Intents-enabled UPnP devices. Basically "Choice 1" 
> according to Jean-Claude below.
>
> * ACTION-511: Figure out how to put together a document describing how 
> to do Intents with existing UPnP (himself or by finding someone who 
> does it) (Giuseppe Pascale): Covers the use case for using a Web 
> Intents enabled UA supporting UPnP discovery to discover 
> unmodified/existing UPnP devices/services. Basically "Choice 2" 
> according to Jean-Claude below.
>
> However, I am not sure where Jean-Claude's choice 3 belongs.
>
> So, which is the problem? We are investigating/specifying Web Intents 
> solutions both for existing local network services and for "Web 
> Intents-enabled" local services. Sony is executing ACTION-510 and 
> Clarke is executing ACTION-511. Fine! J
>
>
JCD: Here are drawings to help understand the various proposals:

In choice 1, registration markup is in the SSDP in the UPnP device. The 
service page is in the browser or proxy.


In choice 2, UPnP device is untouched, registration markup and service 
are in the browser or proxy.

In choice 3, the UPnP device is untouched, the browser is almost 
untouched, just needs to implement a small UPnP service interface, and 
the proxy does all the work and contains both the registration markup 
page and the service page.
This is a good way to make the proxy independent of the browser.

Best regards
JC