[Widex] Updated Widex Requirements draft following WGLC comments
<Vlad.Stirbu@nokia.com> Tue, 16 May 2006 07:23 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FftuO-0001or-Py; Tue, 16 May 2006 03:23:56 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FftuN-0001fk-98 for widex@ietf.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 03:23:55 -0400
Received: from mgw-ext12.nokia.com ([131.228.20.171]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FftuJ-0005U3-4q for widex@ietf.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 03:23:55 -0400
Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-ext12.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k4G7NnC2026149; Tue, 16 May 2006 10:23:50 +0300
Received: from esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.33]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 16 May 2006 10:23:49 +0300
Received: from trebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.22.124.61]) by esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 16 May 2006 10:23:48 +0300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 10:23:47 +0300
Message-ID: <1C1F3D15859526459B4DD0A7A9B2268B021447B1@trebe101.NOE.Nokia.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Updated Widex Requirements draft following WGLC comments
Thread-Index: AcZ4uaupbax+J97ESraB89bDFLYuWw==
From: Vlad.Stirbu@nokia.com
To: widex@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2006 07:23:48.0880 (UTC) FILETIME=[ACBA2100:01C678B9]
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b6e18fadcfab41fa5e7faede753de4c2
Cc:
Subject: [Widex] Updated Widex Requirements draft following WGLC comments
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1133798396=="
Errors-To: widex-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, We have updated the Widex requirements draft taking into account the comments received so far on the mailing list. The draft will be available shortly in the IETF draft repository but until then you can find it here: http://www.kolumbus.fi/vlad.stirbu/draft-ietf-widex-requirements-02.txt. The authors would like to ask the working group if we appropriately answered to comments so that we can finalize the WGLC and move to the next step? Regards, Vlad ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Comments from Rosfran Borges http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/widex/current/msg00093.html: Rosfran: 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). Vlad: I think that the relationship between the Widex Renderer and the User Interface is clarified by the definition of the Widex Session (section 3.6). Rosfran: 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: Vlad: The term "device" refers to a physical device attached to the internet, so having at least one network interface. In the context of this draft the term device with this meaning is used first in the Introduction (section 1) Rosfran: 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): Vlad: WOs already contain serialized data and the transport protocol must carry these object without having to understand their meaning. Rosfran: 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. Vlad: There are two aspects in this comment: the first one related to session establishment and the second related to NAT traversal. Firstly, the meaning of this requirement is that the Session Setup component can initiate the session from both Widex Server and Widex renderer, it doesn't necessarily mean that the actual session should be established from the Server to the Renderer. I have reworded the requirement to include the above mentioned clarification. Secondly, Widex Servers located in private networks are not directly reachable from the internet without some special procedures being performed by the network administrator (e.g. creating some port mappings in the NAT/gateway device). These procedures are generic and they should be performed also for non-Widex specific servers and in the end the server is reachable via the public IP address of the NAT/gateway device making this scenario equivalent with Scenario 1 (section 4.1.1) or Scenario 2 (section 4.1.2). Rosfran: 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". Vlad: Well, the meaning here is that events and updates are just the means to perform the synchronization but in order to do the sync you don't have to understand what you are synchronizing as long as the UI markup language is manipulated as XML DOM. Comments from Jin Yu http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/widex/current/msg00094.html: Jin's comment on Event selection and efficient event delivery Vlad: We consider that this is an implementation option and we don't need to have a special requirement for this further than the one already listed in the draft (section 5.3): "The WOs MUST contain only information having remote scope.". Dave mentioned several implementation options in his reply http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/widex/current/msg00095.html, and we need to consider which is the most appropriate one in the Widex Framework draft (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stirbu-widex-framework-00.txt ), for example. Jin's comment on "UI State Synchronization" Vlad: We consider that the figure in section 2 describes the minimal set of interactions performed in order to export the UI from the Widex Server to the Widex Renderer. At this point we are not making any assumptions on the nature of the messages exchanged over these interfaces. A more elaborate diagram showing the messages exchanged between the WS and WR is described in the Widex Framework draft, but there we are discussing an implementation option.
_______________________________________________ Widex mailing list Widex@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/widex
- [Widex] Updated Widex Requirements draft followin… Vlad.Stirbu
- Re: [Widex] Updated Widex Requirements draft foll… Rosfran Lins Borges