- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:19:25 +0200
- To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's TF call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2011/08/16-webtv-minutes.html
... and copied as raw text below.
In really short:
- Most issues closed.
- People should look at use cases/requirements document and send comments on the mailing-list
- People should take a stab at setting requirements priorities so that this can be discussed next week
Thanks,
Francois.
-----
Home Network TF (Web and TV IG) Teleconference
16 Aug 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Aug/0093.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/16-webtv-irc
Attendees
Present
Russell_Berkoff, Kazuyuki, MattH, francois, Clarke,
David_Corvoysier, JanL, Tatsuya_Igarashi, Giuseppe, Bob_Lund,
Richard_Bardini
Regrets
Chair
Giuseppe
Scribe
francois
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Requirements document
2. [6]Propose text to expand ISSUE-26 and ISSUE-28 to address
Jan's comment (ACTION-69)
3. [7]See if ISSUE-14 and ISSUE-30 can be merged (ACTION-66)
4. [8]Missing HNTF Deliverables
5. [9]Comment on Home Network Enabled User-Agent use cases
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Giuseppe: comment on the agenda?
Requirements document
<giuseppe>
[11]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requireme
nts
[11] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Requirements
Giuseppe: I've done some work this week. Not completely done, but
almost.
... merging use cases and extracting requirements.
... First of all, I'd like to summarize our plan for this document.
... First, finalize this by the end of this month.
... Then include the rest of the IG in the discussion to bring
further comments.
... Then we'll bring this document to the IG F2F for final review,
and then document ready can be published.
... I tried to structure the document with a requirements section.
... I tried to link the use cases with the requirements.
... I'd like to ask everyone to go through the list of requirements
and check associations.
... Propose updates when you're concerned about something.
... What is really important is the requirements, the use cases
could perhaps be marked as informative.
... They are very important to understand the requirements, but
maybe this section could be marked as informative.
... Then there's a section on security.
... I welcome any comment on the document.
... The whole document needs to be approved in the end, even if we
approved all use cases. Open issues need to be addressed if they
exist.
<MattH> +q
Giuseppe: If disagreement, we'll add a section to highlight the lack
of consensus within the group.
<JanL> +q
Narm: Any idea how to indicate the priorities?
Giuseppe: good question. This needs to be reflected somehow in the
document. I don't have a strong opinion.
... One way could be to identify requirements by number and add a
mapping table with 3 priority levels.
... in a dedicated section.
<narm_gadiraju> narm is the one who spoke
Matt: Thanks, great job. I had a little look earlier. Looking at
requirements Application communication. We might clarify that it is
for direct communication and not for communication through
intermediaries.
Giuseppe: OK, I'd like to suggest you bring this comment to the
mailing-list so that others can comment.
Matt: Sure.
Giuseppe: About use cases, people will have to check mapping to
requirements.
Jan: the doc includes links to the original issue and use cases.
... and copies the text to the original issue.
... Do you want us to update the initial text or do you plan to
remove this "Original Proposal" link afterwards?
Giuseppe: I plan to remove the links afterwards.
... Email discussions should be good to update text in use cases.
francois: @@@on requirements that would better be addressed at
"conforming specifications"
Giuseppe: Got it, ok with the approach?
Kaz: yes, useful to add, could perhaps be done in the working group
that takes the requirements spec.
... Also mention the working group that is likely to take on the
work.
... Francois comment is good but too advanced, I think.
... We don't really need that clarification for this requirements
document.
Giuseppe: It's an easy change to do, and I'm fine with it.
... Any other comment?
[none heard]
Propose text to expand ISSUE-26 and ISSUE-28 to address Jan's comment
(ACTION-69)
ACTION-69?
<trackbot> ACTION-69 -- Russell Berkoff to propose text to expand
ISSUE-26 and ISSUE-28 to address Jan's comment -- due 2011-08-16 --
OPEN
<trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/69
[12] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/69
Jan: it looks perfect. Very good addition.
... Question is what do I do with the initial text?
Giuseppe: I'll deal with it. So we can close the issues and I'll
merge the text Russell proposed in the Requirements document.
<scribe> ACTION: Giuseppe to update text of ISSUE-26 and ISSUE-28
based with text proposed by Russell in ACTION-69 [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/16-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-71 - Update text of ISSUE-26 and ISSUE-28
based with text proposed by Russell in ACTION-69 [on Giuseppe
Pascale - due 2011-08-23].
close ACTION-69
<trackbot> ACTION-69 Propose text to expand ISSUE-26 and ISSUE-28 to
address Jan's comment closed
close ISSUE-26
<trackbot> ISSUE-26 Home Network Enabled User Agent - Network Media
Player closed
close ISSUE-28
<trackbot> ISSUE-28 Home Network Enabled User-Agent - Network Media
Controller closed
See if ISSUE-14 and ISSUE-30 can be merged (ACTION-66)
action-66?
<trackbot> ACTION-66 -- Russell Berkoff to see if ISSUE-14 and
ISSUE-30 can be merged -- due 2011-08-09 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/66
[14] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/actions/66
Russell: ISSUE-14 is on services not necessarily connected to a
target in my view.
... whereas ISSUE-30 is really about support of devices and then
services as a means to change the state of the device.
... I tried to give examples of differences in my email.
Giuseppe: My impression from the description of ISSUE-14 is that
it's not particularly either stateless or stateful, so I would think
your use case is included here.
Russell: ISSUE-14 does not have a strong notion of discovering a
device, rather a notion of discovering a service.
... whereas ISSUE-30 is more bound to a device, and then discovery
of services on that device.
Giuseppe: I would be fine to keep ISSUE-30 in as a way to clarify
what use cases we're trying to cover, even though I think it's
pretty generic.
... It will probably generate the same requirements though.
Bob: I agree with you Giuseppe. The distinction between discovering
devices and discovering services on devices would generate the same
requirements.
Giuseppe: I would like to improve the use case that is in. Could you
perhaps suggest a better wording of use case 1?
... Wait, I was not looking at the right issue.
... I believe the action was mis-recorded, it's ISSUE-4, not
ISSUE-14.
... So U1 in the requirements document.
... We can probably extend the use case a little bit, could you look
into it?
Russell: OK, I'll have a look.
Giuseppe: Conclusion is to look at U1 for ISSUE-4 and propose text
if it's not enough.
... We'll close action and issue next week.
Missing HNTF Deliverables
<giuseppe>
[15]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Charter#D
eliverables
[15] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/HNTF/Home_Network_TF_Charter#Deliverables
Giuseppe: One is gap. That's covered with use cases and requirements
document.
... Another item is to categorize all the use cases/requirements.
... I'd be happy to hear your opinions on this.
... If they are equally important, we can skip this categorisation
phase.
... Looking at the different options we have in the charter. [going
through the list].
... I need input from the group here.
... i.e. shoot for option 6, with liaisons to some groups perhaps.
Matt: We already know that DAP is to take device discovery. [lots of
echo]. I would suggest that's a main chunk of what we're trying to
achieve, so moving to there sounds good.
Giuseppe: Right, that's exactly the kind of input I'm looking for,
so we can propose recommendations to W3C Director.
... It seems a good idea to start with the DAP group since it's
already listed in the new charter, and then check from there what
needs to be defined on top of that later on.
Clarke: In order for the result of the work to be consistent, it may
make sense to put all our requirements into one working group.
Giuseppe: I'm not sure if it's the best thing to do.
... If requirements on Media Pipeline TF impact on the video,
perhaps the HTML WG is better for that.
... But some of our requirements, we may suggest to have another WG
handle them.
Clarke: How do you maintain consistency if work is carried on in
different groups?
<Clarke> That was Clarke talking, not Bob
<Clarke> thanks
Francois: @@W3C Process is meant to address this.
Giuseppe: yes, and too many deliverables or too broad a scope may
hamper the progress of a group.
... for the Media Pipeline TF, it seems more focused on extensions
to the video tag, so HTML WG sounds the right place for discussions.
Francois: yes, but not necessarily, it could be done in a separate
WG.
[scribe missed last exchange]
<Clarke> My point was that if anyone is concerned about alignment
between working groups they should participate in both working
groups.
Giuseppe: On the WG part, I would propose to give the document as it
is to DAP, as it seems to be matching their charter.
... When it comes to categorize use cases/requirements, I would say
it falls in the category "new requirements for a WG", so basically
we're good.
... That's my proposal.
... Feel free to comment. The priority discussion is still open.
Bob: I have a suggestion on priorities. Set of requirements that
represent the minimal amount of work you'd need to do to enable
scenarios.
... That would create a mandatory set of requirements, and a
"larger" set of requirements, leading to an easy distinction.
Giuseppe: yes, sounds like a good approach.
... Some of the requirements may require more investigation, such as
migration scenarios for instance, others may be easier to do. I'm
fine with your distinction.
Clarke: we could ask someone to volunteer to take a first stab.
... s/someone/a few people/
... to have something to start from and see if adjustment is needed.
Giuseppe: Yes, I'd like to ask people here to categorize the
requirements, so we can review that next week.
... Fine with everybody?
[nodding "heard"]
Kaz: Question about relationship with RFC2119.
... First priority is MUST statements, right?
Giuseppe: I was more thinking about a time schedule rather than
MUST/SHOULD.
... We need base functionality to enable basic home networking
scenarios, then more to build on top of it.
Kaz: Yes, it could be done later, fine to proceed with priority in
the TF.
Giuseppe: I think these are two different things, actually, so I
would proceed with priorities even in the final report.
Giuseppe: Please send me (or to the mailing-list) a list of which
requirements should be in which category, and I'll make a summary
next week for discussion.
Comment on Home Network Enabled User-Agent use cases
<giuseppe>
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Aug/00
85.html
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2011Aug/0085.html
[Giuseppe and Russell about status of email exchanges]
<giuseppe> "Provide a mean for applications to control some of the
parameters that may be needed to be expose to support
well-established home network protocols. A more detailed analysis is
needed to identify such parameters and a way to specify them in a
transport agnostic way"
Giuseppe: we need to identify requirements, we cannot be too vague.
My suggestion would be to look at precise requirements so that a WG
can action these requirements.
... We could phrase as "we've identified a gap here on transport
headers, and the WG should look into these"
Russell: It's a fairly broad topic, so simple requirements might
help.
Giuseppe: It wasn't clear to me what the sentence covered.
Russell: It used to say DLNA, but there was a request to remove
mentions of DLNA.
Giuseppe: but the use case is not about DLNA.
... I'm not suggesting to change the meaning, merely to clarify the
requirement.
Russell: The point of the response was that the headers provide info
for the user-agent, the application and playback engine.
Giuseppe: Again, I'm not suggesting to change the meaning, but to
clarify and point the WG to that saying it needs to be addressed.
... Probably easier if you reply on the actual text.
... Same for the other two points.
... Let's conclude on the mailing-list.
Russell: How do people in the TF feel about compatibility forward or
backward?
Jan: Could you provide examples?
Russell: Dealing with older user-agents, for instance.
Jan: sounds like a core architectural design point.
<Clarke> I think that was Jan, not Clarke
Giuseppe: I don't think it's part of a spec, more a point for the
community to check how they can support the feature in old browsers.
Russell: If people feel this way, ok to dropping.
[scribe missed precise comments because of echo]
Giuseppe: ok, running out of time, closing call now. Have a good
day!
[Call adjourned]
<kaz> [ btw, some clarification for Clarke's concern: 1. we should
not invent "wheels" again, 2. we have Hypertext Coordination Group
formed by WG/IG Chairs for inter-group coordination, 3 if needed we
could consider some meta mechanism like SMIL, RDF and MMI to
integrate several specifications consistently ]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Giuseppe to update text of ISSUE-26 and ISSUE-28 based
with text proposed by Russell in ACTION-69 [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2011/08/16-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 15:19:49 UTC