Re: [discovery] Network Service Discovery and Web & TV feedback: follow up & additional questions

Just to complete your summary, I also replied and some supported that another alternative to NSD is user-agent access to LAN instead of external website access to LAN:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014Apr/0054.html

This addresses security issues with no changes required to existing LAN services.

Thanks,
mav

On Jun 4, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com> wrote:

> [cross-posted intentionally]
> 
> Giuseppe, all
> 
> In April I sent a request to the Web & TV Interest group for feedback related to Network Service Discovery [1]. I believe the essence of the request was captured in your minutes of 16 April [2] and the follow up from Daniel Davis [3], (slightly paraphrased):
> 
> * Does NSD meet the original requirements? http://www.w3.org/TR/hnreq/
> 
> * How much interest and support is there for Network Service Discovery?
> 
> * Are device manufacturers willing to support CORS in order to enable NSD support?
> 
> * Are stakeholders willing to work with user agent vendors for implementation?
> 
> * What changes are needed if any?
> 
> Matt shared a response [4] that the BBC is "working to ensure CORS support is implemented by HbbTV 2.0 devices for protocols that may be communicated with by companion devices across the home network�.  What is the degree of support for this effort, and what time frame is expected?
> 
> Peter Lanigan  of the Smart TV Alliance indicated plans [5] to reference the Network Service Discovery specification. He noted that having both CORS and white-listing addresses security requirements, that it is necessary to have something like this for application developers and that there are proof of concept implementations. I should point out that the editors draft is currently a work in progress, so care should be taken referencing it until the draft advances. 
> 
> I also observed in the minutes the view that browser implementer support may be required (though I note extensions might also be an interim possibility)
> 
> At this point there is one additional important question to ask:
> 
> Have you considered alternatives to Network Service Discovery and how much interest are they receiving? In particular, the Named WebSockets proposal [6] offers an alternative that seems to separate concerns cleanly - using ZeroConf to enable name discovery and then WebSockets to communicate once names are established,  resulting in a relatively simple specification (Rich can add more if better explanation is needed). Use of names might also help with the issue we�ve noted in DAP related to privacy and exposing local network identifiers.
> 
> There has also been a thread on the Mozilla browser development list suggesting that building network discovery using a UDP socket approach might be preferable to the NSD specification [7], 
> 
> If anyone has more to add  regarding the status of Network Service Discovery with respect to the  Web & TV work, or regarding security, adoption and alternatives, please share on the lists.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
> Chair DAP
> @fjhirsch
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014Apr/0025.html
> 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/04/16-webtv-minutes.html#item02
> 
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014Apr/0032.html
> 
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014Apr/0033.html
> 
> [5] shared by Giuseppe,  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2014May/0009.html
> 
> [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2014May/0032.html
> 
> [7] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=914579
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 9 June 2014 20:19:37 UTC