W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-intents@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Local Discovery addendum update for mDNS

From: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:24:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAxVY9fe4x2nSSKCz-dVeg3gKdK+Z5km1=79ZTGVhVv4vUXXVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>
Cc: James Hawkins <jhawkins@google.com>, Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>, "public-web-intents@w3.org" <public-web-intents@w3.org>
A solution for this that wouldn't require DNS chops is to use a
resource within /.well-known/ [1]

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com> wrote:
> I quite like the idea a lot of web developers are used to managing DNS for
> verification of ownership of Google Apps accounts and Web Master tools (you
> encode a TXT record with the information).  That being said, it can be a
> little be daunting, problems with propegations and a nightmare to configure
> depending on provider.
> Another point, I have spoken to several large retail companies in the past
> and changing DNS is a larger task from an Operations PoV than changing a
> template for a page (and in a lot of cases deploying a new file is pretty
> hard - too much work) etc.
> Would the suggested Scope be:
> UPnP- home and local discovery
> mDNS etc - web discovery, centrally managed by owner
> intent tag (or other) - web discovery, developer experience/ease of starting
> P
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:41 AM, James Hawkins <jhawkins@google.com> wrote:
>> This seems like an interesting idea, especially as a supplement to the
>> existing registration mechanism(s).  My initial thought is that this seems a
>> bit daunting for the average web developer, but I suppose it's not geared at
>> that crowd.
>> My second thought is that it may add unnecessary complexity to the API.
>> We should definitely attempt to figure out how open folks are to investing
>> in the cost necessary to support this registration, as it moves outside of
>> the realm of the abilities of Joe WebDev.
>> Thanks,
>> James
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com> wrote:
>>> Norifumi Kikkawa wrote:
>>>> Claes and I updated the addendum to support mDNS.
>>>> http://w3c-test.org/dap/wi-addendum-local-services/
>>>> The basic idea is same as that for UPnP. The discovery protocol is used
>>>> to obtain the location of the WebIntents page.
>>> I haven't gone through the proposal in detail just yet but my
>>> understanding at this point is that it essentially provides a way to
>>> bootstrap the registration of standard Web Intents Providers via common
>>> discovery protocols (mDNS/DNS-SD and SSDP).
>>> As I mentioned at the F2F a couple of weeks ago I think that there is a
>>> big opportunity here to re-use the mDNS/DNS-SD parts of this spec to be able
>>> to bootstrap the registration of Web Intents providers from wide-area
>>> networks i.e. the web.
>>> The UA (though probably not individual web pages) could query the root
>>> DNS record of e.g. 'google.com' (by setting the mDNS search domain to
>>> '.google.com') and then register any and all web intent services that are
>>> included therein automatically in the UA.
>>> It means that as a user navigates different domains on the web the UA
>>> itself could simultaneously and orthogonally make a query for Web Intent
>>> service records included in that domain's root DNS record (according to the
>>> format defined in this spec) and register those Web Intents in the UA for
>>> future invocation by any web pages.
>>> It would be an alternative (bootstrap) mechanism for registering web
>>> intent providers and it could be complimentary to both the programmatic and
>>> declarative way to register Web Intents that we have now. In some ways it
>>> may be even cleaner than the other registration methods since there is only
>>> ever one single authorative record of the Web Intents that any given domain
>>> provides (in the domain's root DNS record). That avoids the issue of
>>> different web pages on the same domain potentially contradicting each other
>>> wrt the Web Intent Providers available on the domain.
>>> I'm wondering if it's worth discussing this further here, if you have had
>>> any thoughts in this general direction and if it's something we might want
>>> to cover in this specification or elsewhere.
>>> Would be good to get input on having this type of bootstrap registration
>>> process for Web Intents.
>>> br/ Rich
> --
> Paul Kinlan
> Developer Advocate @ Google for Chrome and HTML5
> Watch my I/O talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1YjdKh-rPg
> G+: http://plus.ly/paul.kinlan
> t: +447730517944
> tw: @Paul_Kinlan
> LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/paulkinlan
> Blog: http://paul.kinlan.me
> Skype: paul.kinlan
Received on Monday, 30 July 2012 15:24:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:58:44 UTC