See also: IRC log
Giuseppe: Proposal from me
highlighting some of the security problems the use cases can
raise.
... Got some comments. I tried to clarify the text.
... If no further comments, I'll merge it into requirements
doc.
[none heard]
Giuseppe: ok, will do then
Giuseppe: following mailing-list
discussion, split requirements into 2.
... If no other comment, we can move on.
Matt: Happy with the result.
Giuseppe: OK, good.
Giuseppe: discussion last time on whether we should drop the requirements or update the text. Bob and Russell wanted to propose text but didn't see text.
Bob: I haven't had time to send text.
Giuseppe: We can probably review that during the IG F2F. We can leave the requirements in and review it during the F2F then.
Bob: fine.
Giuseppe: I tried to summarize feedback I got on the list.
Matt: Pretty happy with what you've done there.
Giuseppe: I wrote a section
called "Next Steps", I invite people to review that
section.
... DAP group already has device discovery in its charter so
next step is to propose requirements there and create another
WG if and only if some of them are not taken up by DAP.
... Then I categorized requirements into higher and lower
priorities.
... based on what we discussed last week.
Igarashi: How do you handle divergences of opinions on priorities?
Giuseppe: What is there is
supposed to be the consensus of the discussions we already had.
I encourage you to review the text and raise concerns.
... If there are objections, we can record them in the
requirements doc.
Igarashi: OK, I think Application communication should be higher priority.
Giuseppe: One way is to discuss
this and see if we can reach agreement.
... Otherwise, we'll just record disagreement.
Igarashi: [comment I missed on Application communication and other requirements priorities]
Bob: Could you summarize the issue?
Giuseppe: issue is should we move "Application communication" to high priority?
[scribe missed gist of discussion here, Igarashi-san, feel free to record your points down on IRC!]
Giuseppe: I can move this in high priority list if no one objects.
Russell: In terms of UPnP, we don't recognize applications per se, only devices, that would be difficult for us to accomodate.
Matt: the requirement could be fulfilled by different implementations. I would not translate it into meaning UPnP has to provide this set of functionalities.
Igashari: also, it's pretty generic, not bound to a particular protocol.
Giuseppe: I don't think it's a big deal moving it to high priority.
Igarashi: important point. Generic that can be extended [echo heard, scribe missed most of it again]
<kaz> +1
Giuseppe: Let's resolve it over email. Please send comments on current text and we'll resolve this during F2F. Try to be specific and propose text.
ISSUE-48?
<trackbot> ISSUE-48 -- CEA-2014 Remote UI Overview -- raised
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/48
Giuseppe: I saw some text from
JC. I can go ahead and integrate that text.
... Please send comments if needed.
... Any other comments on requirements document?
[none heard]
<kaz> HNTF issues
<kaz> issue-30?
<trackbot> ISSUE-30 -- Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network Device Controller -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/30
Giuseppe: not sure what we should do with implementation alternatives.
Clarke: fine if you include an informative link to reference the proposals.
Giuseppe: OK, thanks, sounds good, we can close it then.
[comment scribe missed on adding reference link]
Giuseppe: Russell, about closing ISSUE-30?
Russell: Yes, I'm fine with that.
Close ISSUE-30
<trackbot> ISSUE-30 Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network Device Controller closed
Giuseppe: ok, good.
Giuseppe: Next step is to
circulate the requirements doc within the whole IG.
... get feedback, address comments, and close the doc during
the IG F2F.
... In parallel to this, the co-chairs are trying to write an
IG report describing IG history and progress.
... The requirements doc would be linked from the IG
report.
Russell: [question about IG report]
Giuseppe: The IG is a public group, so everyone will be able to send comments on the doc. During the F2F, only IG participants are allowed to attend
JeanClaude: What is the status of the implementation alternative doc?
Giuseppe: we just said we should probably drop it. It's reflected by the different solutions proposed by Opera, CableLabs. We should close it as it was meant to trigger discussions (and it did).
mav: How many items remain to be addressed? You mentioned a couple.
Giuseppe: We're not looking into
adding more requirements. There is nothing pending as far as I
can see. I'm expecting comments to clarify what the text
says.
... The agenda for the F2F is to review this document and
approve it, to discuss next steps, e.g. involvement within DAP,
discuss possible joint meeting at TPAC, etc.
... Then, during the F2F, we'll have another discussion at the
IG level, to see if we need to continue discussions in this TF,
in another one on another TF, things that worked out well,
things that should be improved.
<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to ask about possible (additional?) agenda topic idea
Giuseppe: Be prepared to share pro/cons about TF during the F2F!
Kaz: It might make sense to ask TF participants about how to form the agenda of the IG f2f meeting.
StevenWright: question about definition about home network in requirements doc. Restricted to IPv4? Open to IPv6?
Bob: CableLabs is planning to support IPv6.
StevenWright: perhaps worth being explicit.
Narm: does home network cover only local device, or "extended" home networks with remote devices?
Giuseppe: home/home
communications is important but we haven't investigated it
thoroughly. Idea would be to mention it as something that
requires more work.
... Could someone provide text for home network
clarifications?
Clarke: Happy to.
Giuseppe: back to Kaz point. F2F points?
Igarashi: Comments on requirements could be discussed at the F2F before it is approved.
Giuseppe: yes, this is one point
of the agenda.
... I drafted an initial agenda
-> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/First_F2F_Schedule Draft F2F schedule
Giuseppe: For HNTF, next steps on
standardization works, next steps as a TF (close? continue?)
and perhaps presentations of preliminary work as we experienced
in e.g. CableLabs and Opera
... [going through the remaining agenda]
... Any proposal to add to our slot?
... Agenda is on the wiki, please look at it and propose
additions.
... Any other question?
... I have one comment on Media Identification, put as other
requirement.
... Not sure if it's related to what DAP is chartered to
do.
Matt: depends on the level of
complexity you put in media identification. At the beginning,
it was a means to get access to an identifier that applications
can use.
... Support for enabling metadata as a way to store the
identifier.
Giuseppe: yes, social TV was
another aspect, as you need an identifier to be able to share
it.
... Not limited to home network scenarios.
Matt: Question for the IG as a whole.
Bob: The media metadata work that's going on, does that cover what you're talking about?
Francois: Media Annotations WG?
Bob: yes.
Clarke: But not talking about media identification per se.
Giuseppe: we should look in this WG and see if its scope overlaps with this requirement.
Igarashi: Proposal for agenda
F2F.
... Need to include feedback from workshop on home
networks.
Giuseppe: yes, included in global agenda.
<kaz> [it's included in: http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/First_F2F_Schedule#Main_IG_.28IG_report_review.29]
Giuseppe: no more calls by F2F,
we'll continue discussions on the list.
... Thanks everybody! Bye!
[call adjourned]