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

On 27/4/12 03:47 , Sato, Naoyuki (TDG) wrote:
> 1) In choice 1, the service page should come from UPnP deivce.
>
> please check page 13 at Claes's presentation 
> <http://www.w3.org/wiki/images/f/fa/W3C_Web_Intents_-_Local_Service_Discovery.pdf>
>
JCD: OK, I see it now, thanks.

> 2) also, what is the definition of "proxy" in choice 1 ?
>
JCD: The proxy is the extra adaptation logic interfacing the web intents 
system with the UPnP system.
If the browser implementing web intents is unmodified as Claes intends, 
then the proxy in choice 1 is completely in the modified UPnP device.



> if this is mechanism to register or notify the webintents registration 
> info to Browser,
>
> this "proxy" would be same as choice 3.
>
> so, for me, choice 1 and choice 3 may be same.
>
> 1) choice 1 should be below.
>
> 2) choice 1 and choice 3 may be same
>
JCD: Choice 3 is really different from choice1 in the following way:

Choice 1 has only modified UPnP devices talking with the web intents 
browser.

Choice 3 has ONE single UPnP Control Point (i.e. the "proxy"), modified 
to interface with Web Intents, and all other UPnP devices are unmodified.
Best regards
JC

> *From:*Jean-Claude Dufourd 
> [mailto:jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 27, 2012 5:23 AM
> *To:* Nilsson, Claes1
> *Cc:* Sato, Naoyuki (TDG); Clarke Stevens; public-web-intents@w3.org
> *Subject:* 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
>


-- 
JC Dufourd
Directeur d'Etudes/Professor
Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing
Telecom ParisTech, 37-39 rue Dareau, 75014 Paris, France
Tel: +33145817733 - Mob: +33677843843 - Fax: +33145817144