[Widex] Working group last call (WGLC) for Requirements: draft-ietf-widex-requirements-01.txt (review)
Rosfran Lins Borges <rosfran.borges@indt.org.br> Wed, 10 May 2006 02:34 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdeXA-0005he-9b; Tue, 09 May 2006 22:34:40 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdeX9-0005hX-DR for widex@ietf.org; Tue, 09 May 2006 22:34:39 -0400
Received: from mgw-ext14.nokia.com ([131.228.20.173]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FdeX6-0003dj-RF for widex@ietf.org; Tue, 09 May 2006 22:34:39 -0400
Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-ext14.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k4A2YXVQ008725; Wed, 10 May 2006 05:34:33 +0300
Received: from daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.112]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 10 May 2006 05:34:23 +0300
Received: from daebe102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.115]) by daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 9 May 2006 21:34:21 -0500
Received: from [172.19.141.54] ([172.19.141.54]) by daebe102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 9 May 2006 21:34:20 -0500
Message-ID: <4461505C.2080006@indt.org.br>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 23:30:52 -0300
From: Rosfran Lins Borges <rosfran.borges@indt.org.br>
Organization: INdT/Recife
User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051017)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: widex@ietf.org
Subject: [Widex] Working group last call (WGLC) for Requirements: draft-ietf-widex-requirements-01.txt (review)
References: <002801c672f1$a20e5190$1e0aa8c0@martsbs.local> <F4F68EF6-7AEF-4740-8B4F-2094F3A6D9BF@softarmor.com>
In-Reply-To: <F4F68EF6-7AEF-4740-8B4F-2094F3A6D9BF@softarmor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2006 02:34:21.0166 (UTC) FILETIME=[3E48C8E0:01C673DA]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 36b1f8810cb91289d885dc8ab4fc8172
Cc:
X-BeenThere: widex@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working list for the WIDEX working group at IETF <widex.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/widex>, <mailto:widex-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/widex>
List-Post: <mailto:widex@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:widex-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/widex>, <mailto:widex-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: widex-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, As a reader of this list, and an enthusiast of everything related with technology and its applications (such as the evolving Remote UI), I've been looking at the Widex evolution since the initial draft, and I compiled a small list of comments concerning this newly released Widex Requirements document. I hope my comments may be useful to everybody interested. Next, there are some points I felt that may potentially be misunderstood: At the second section (section 2, "Widex Entities"), there is a description about a lot of complex interactions among Widex Server instances and Widex Renderers. We can correctly understand that there is a component relationship [1:1] between the Widex Server and the User Interface (that, by its way, relates with the application logic), and a relation [1:m] (1 to many), where for each Widex Server instance, there are some Widex Renderer related instances. By reading this paragraph, one can see that may be missing a little something about Widex Renderers and User Interfaces, and it would be: 1) something really missing, and maybe the Widex requirements now hasn't been worrying so much about it, and this will be pretty specified in the framework. or 2) it is a open question, it will be put in the hands of implementors. But, this is a very important concern, because there are a lot of UI mappings (such as session IDs, timestamps for UI events, UI component/widgets IDs, etc.), which should be considered on remote UI framework models (e.g., synchronizing the UI Model state between the UI application and Widex Renderer). Below, the part of the draft I got this: /--- ( Widex Requirements snippet start) --- // 2. Widex Entities (...) There might be several Widex Servers in the same device, one for each application that can export the user interface and for each Widex server there might be several Widex Renderers which are rendering the user interface. --- ( Widex Requirements snippet finish) ---/ I observed yet that there are explanations using the term "device", which couldn't be interpreted as a "distributed/networked device", as it really is meaning: /--- ( Widex Requirements snippet start) --- //3.2. Remote User Interface The Remote User Interface (RUI) is a technique in which *a user interface is rendered on another device than the one that runs the application logic *while keeping the user interface synchronised with the application logic. --- ( Widex Requirements snippet finish) ---/ The next thing I had noted was in the section 3.3, "Widex Objects": RUI (Remote UI Objects) are not defined anymore in this draft, it was changed to Widex Objects (WO). You can see this typo below: /--- ( Widex Requirements snippet start) --- //3.3. Widex Objects (...) There are two types of WOs: WO Update (*RUI*.Update): *WO*.Update messages contain description of changes to XML DOM trees. The updates can target individual nodes in order to update --- ( Widex Requirements snippet finish) ---/ The next section, 3.4, has two concerns: the first one is the typo that refers to a "RUIO" (Remote UI Object), when it should be "WO" (Widex Object); second aspect in this paragraph is the description of the transport protocol as a component that transports WOs as a "string of bits, without looking at them": this would mean that the protocol must to send the WOs through the network transport layer using some kind of data serialization, which will get the original XML-based data for all the UI events and updates, and create a binary representation of them before sending/receiving. But I am just guessing. And I hadn't understood the requisite that says that WO data must to be transported using this protocol, and it cannot "look at them" ("them" referring to the WO data): /--- ( Widex Requirements snippet start) ---/ /3.4. Transport Protocol The Transport Protocol is a protocol that just transports the *RUI*Os as a string of bits, without looking at them. //--- ( Widex Requirements snippet //finish //) ---/ There are 3 NAT traversal scenarios described in the draft, but since there is a item at section 5.3 ("The WOs MUST support server initiated updates"), this creates a new need, since we complain with the rule that says: "the session setup mechanism MUST be able to establish sessions from both Widex Renderers and Widex Servers, e.g. remote user interface pull and push" (section 5.2, "Session Setup"). Since Widex Session Setup can establish a session from both Renderers and Servers, I can see a scenario where a Widex Server must to establish a session, and send some kind of UI model (WO update) to the Renderer located in a public network, them it should guess about some kind of NAT traversal to allow a proper interaction between Renderer and Server. For example, a remote user interface push to the Renderer in a public network, and a Server that works in a private network enviroment, like a house; the Server providing instantaneous security images from user's home, let's suppose. So, I guess is missing the case when the Widex Server is located inside a private network. /--- ( Widex Requirements snippet //start // ) ---/ /4.1.2. Scenario 2: Widex Server Located in Internet In this scenario the Server is located somewhere in the Internet, has a globally routable, public IP address (and/or FQDN), and the client is behind a NAT device. The access network is a network where/ /--- ( Widex Requirements snippet //finish // ) ---/ At a first sight, the first item of the section 5.3 is not clear enough: we can think in the "semantics" term, the "markup" concept is very clear too, but I couldn't relate these 2 words with the last word of this item, "synchronized": one cannot make assumptions with "semantincs synchronized", nor "markup synchronized", but maybe this ought to really means that "the WOs MUST NOT be aware of the semantics of the markup language that describes its event and update messages, which is one of the attributes negotiated at the Widex Session instantiation". I could see this only after some readings in the draft: /--- ( Widex Requirements snippet start) ---/ /5.3. Widex Objects Requirements o The WOs MUST NOT be aware of the *semantics of the markup that is synchronized.* / /--- ( Widex Requirements snippet finish) ---/ I hope that it had been well explained (I tried!). Let me see if you found something useful in my explanation... Regards, Rosfran Borges _______________________________________________ Widex mailing list Widex@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/widex
- [Widex] WiDeX and XUP Jin Yu
- Re: [Widex] WiDeX and XUP Dean Willis
- [Widex] Working group last call (WGLC) for Requir… Rosfran Lins Borges