W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > April 2015

Re: [WoT IG] F2F Agenda

From: KOMATSU Kensaku <kensaku.komatsu@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 01:29:08 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKopxYyRnLCJdQWdFRmnrcometRbsipjrpheBa5FT_WhTSW6gA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Cc: "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>, "Heuer, Joerg" <Joerg.Heuer@siemens.com>, Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Hi Dave,

Yes, my motivation and approach is same as you suggested. First of
all, we would need to survey current
use cases, existing approach etc.

I agree that current approach of trusted agent will mitigate security
issue for local server. However, my opinion
is that this service model for working well depends on user circumstances.
For example, if the server hosted TV is connected via Home Network
Wifi and user's smartphone is via LTE,
smartphone cannot access to the TV cause trusted agent device cannot
access to different network.
To prevent this issue, some vendor is providing cloud server
alternative to home server. But, this approach
increases internet traffic and lose responsibility.

It means, not only the SSDP/mDNS approach but also cloud server will
be required for the device orchestration.
I guess if we could have adaptive feature for each user network
circumstance, it will be great. (In other word,
it will be called as automatic fallback model into device orchestration).

So, I think having a discussion about how do we address this issue for
the automatic fallback model is quite
important to move forward current Web of Things movement.

Best,

--- Ken

2015-04-17 11:31 GMT+02:00 Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>:
>
> On 17 Apr 2015, at 05:29, KOMATSU Kensaku <kensaku.komatsu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As you know that for several years, there were lots of discussion about
> device discovery issues such as SSDP, mDNS. But using those existing
> protocols within web architecture seems difficult
> for several reasons (mostly, privacy issues).
>
> More over, current network devices such as DLNA are based on local web
> server model, but
> currently webappsec wg is now having a discussion to prohibit accessing such
> a local web server
> from browser. It means, it becomes hard to orchestrate existing network
> devices from browser.
>
> So, I think for moving forward to Web of Things movement and realize
> innovative device orchestration services within web architecture, adequate
> framework discussion for discovering and controlling devices will be
> required. ( I guess WebRTC has a potential to address above issues )
>
>
> Hi Kensaku,
>
> Discovery is one of the topics for the proposed web of things framework task
> force.  We would need to survey use cases, existing approaches, the problems
> that have been identified, and potential new approaches.
>
> My understanding is that privacy issues can be mitigated through having the
> browser as a trusted agent. This approach is being used for the second
> screen presentation API, and I believe for the bluetooth API.
>
> Another approach avoids the need for  the browser to invoke local discovery
> protocols directly.  Instead a server on the phone or on a home hub
> registers the devices with a service that users access from their browser.
> This service could be hosted in the home or in the cloud.
>
> Best regards,
> —
>    Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 16:29:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:26:28 UTC