Talk:DLNA

New address for References

http://www.dlna.org/Consumer-Home/dlna-community/faq The old reference address for "a b c d Frequently Asked Questions About DLNA from the DLNA website. Retrieved 2010-01-22" is dead.

Sorry, I don't know how to edit this ref links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.60.141 (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Like a press release

I think the text is from the official DLNA vision whitepaper 2007 (http://www.dlna.org/en/industry/pressroom/DLNA_white_paper.pdf) English is not my native language, so somebody else should review and modify the article please.

This page reads like a press release. Is this really the proper tone? 69.115.194.45 01:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Edited it a bit, hope it's an improvement. --Bernd-vdb (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As of October 2012, still reads like a press release. No mention of the weaknesses and deficiencies of the current DLNA spec widely noted across the web (no gapless audio playback, extremely limited codecs/resolutions/bitrates, DLNA implementations from different manufacturers often don't work together well, only addresses IPv4, doesn't address gigabit ethernet, not kept up the the tremendous technology changes over the last 10 years, etc). After the initial promise reflected in the 2003 and 2006 spec releases, it seems the DLNA org is just a marketing organization.

Also no mention of the often-promised but never delivered DLNA 2.0 spec - why has it been 6 years and counting since the last spec update, what is the new expected release schedule, what will 2.0 contain, etc.

"Guidelines" published in 2009 and 2011 are ambiguous - are they mandatory or not? What happens to one's certification if any guideline is not followed? If mandatory, why not unambiguously make it part of the spec, certification and testing program? If not mandatory, then why even bother with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.85.188 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Detail

This page does not contain nearly enough detail. What features do DLNA 1.0 and 1.5 provide? What features are lacking? What does DLNA add to uPNP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.177.14 (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to see some information about the protocol (although I'm afraid it would only be 'high level' information because the protocol itself seems to be protected by the DLNA organisation; non-members need to pay a $500 fee (http://www.dlna.org/industry/certification/guidelines/Order_the_DLNA_Guidelines.pdf) and to become a member you need to pay $10.000 initially and $10.000 a year (http://www.dlna.org/industry/join/overview/)). I can't believe, in 2008, that this protocol hasn't been developed in an open way... --RobIII (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it secured? can't find any security related info on the dlna website (http://www.dlna.org) 131.203.80.9 (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone wants to read the specs and enlighten us? --Bernd-vdb (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Heather Kirksey seems to have figured out most of it: [http://www.broadband2.com/usingstandardstostandout.asp ] It seems it is a simplified/restricted subset of UPnP for hardware manufacturers. The "Home Networking Version 1" specification classifies the type of equipment and gives types such as "Display" the ability to interact with type "Storage" (i.e. play mp3 on TV from NAS) The Logo/Guideline group seems to be no more self promoting than most are. Even closed Standards cost money to produce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpaulc (talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

wth are:

• Digital media servers (DMS)
• Digital media players (DMP)
• Digital media controllers (DMC)
• Digital media renderers (DMR)

Can someone expand on these?

Graingert (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DLNA is a protocol stack of industry standard protocols. See fig 1. Sony Global - Technology - DLNA The UPnP layers detect other UPnP devices and their content. The DRM, the media (pictures, videos, and audio) are streamed over a session that looks like web browsing (http over TCP/IP. The lowest layer is either Ethernet (802.3i 10BT or 802.3u 100BT) or Wi-Fi (802.11 a/b/g/n?).

The protocol stack allows conversations between the device classes you mention above.  kgrr ^talk 12:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Your 12:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC) comment on the Talk:Digital Living Network Alliance page appears to be slightly incorrect: The DRM (Digital Transmission Content Protection over IP) happens at the link layer, not over HTTP as you claim. From reading (http://www.dlna.org/about_us/roadmap/DLNA_Whitepaper.pdf page 4, table 1), I gather that even the IP layer (IPv4) runs on top of this. 208.99.137.71 (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)" (comment left on my talk page)

Maybe I was mis-reading http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/dlna_01.html Figure 1: DLNA Protocol Stack

So if I read http://www.dlna.org/about_us/roadmap/DLNA_Whitepaper.pdf table 1 correctly, then the link protection is not being done at the link layer, but being provided over IP using DTCP/IP. Read this: Steve Balogh and Francis Bruening DTCP-IP: Developing a Technical Foundation for Digital Homes Dr. Dobbs Journal, July 25, 2005.

In fact, the DRM *cannot* be done at the link layer because doing so would require changes within the home network. If you think about it, in order to change the link layer on my Wi-Fi, you would have to change my Wi-Fi drivers for my PC and the firmware for my AP. In order to change the link layer on Ethernet, you would have to change my Ethernet drivers for my PC and the firmware for my router. Although I run a Cisco switch at home, the link layer is hard coded. On home network switches, one cannot change the link layer.  kgrr ^talk 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the OSI model is not that rigid. Clearly DTCP/IP runs directly on top of the IP layer, possibly as a drop-in replacement for TCP or UDP. For Similar reasons, The Sony diagram must be wrong: it is impossible for DTCP to be embedded in the actual media formats. I suspect the diagrams are deliberately vague so that you need to consult the secret documentation.

I was working under the assumption that DTCP forms a "link layer" by abstracting away the underlying network. So the stack would be: 802.3 -> IP -> DTCP/IP -> IPv4 -> rest of stack

The problem with that model is that UPnP (discovery) probably happens in the clear (not protected by DTCP). Probably need to do some packet sniffing to find out, but that would be original research. 208.99.137.71 (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is really no reason to protect UPnP. The IP addresses and device functions are not secret. kgrr ^talk 14:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes! What exactly does DLNA do?

Specifically, I have been trying to find out whether a DLNA-enabled TV is useful for anything more than getting a list of media from a media server and then playing them, but the question of DLNA's capabilites has much wider relevence. Never have I come across a more-hyped, less-published-fact technology than this! One question that really needs answering in the wikipedia article is exactly what capabilities DLNA devices have, what uses the are suitable for, and what they are not. (My own particular question was "can a DLNA-enabled TV be used to interact with home control equipment, without needing a separate set-top box?" Guesses, anyone?)

Kim SJ (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To me, DLNA implements the OSI model for DRM. It prescribes the Physical layer (Ethernet 802.3, MoCA, Wi-Fi 802.11), the Link layer (DTCP/IP), the network and Transport Layers (IPv4 Protocol Suite, HTTP), the session and presentation layers (MPEG2, MPEG4, AVC/H.264, LPCM, MP3, AAC LC, JPEG, XHTML-Print), as well as the Application layer (UPnP). 208.99.137.71 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's much more than that. DLNA is a set of protocols that allow media to be transferred between various classes of devices while retaining Digital Rights Management and simplifying the connectivity for the lay person.  kgrr ^talk 14:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

http://gxben.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/why-do-i-hate-dlna-protocol-so-much/174.88.18.136 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, second that, What the #@$#@ does DLNA provide for the consumer? I read the article 3 times before figuring this out only with some knowledge of the topics. DLNA is a feature targeted towards consumers, so the article should be targeted to lay consumers, and start with a simple explanation of what it does for a consumer. Something like "DLNA is an industry standard protocol for sharing multimedia content between consumer devices such as computers, printers, cameras, cell phones, and other multimedia devices. It implements Digital Rights Management to help protect the property rights of content providers."24.98.77.11 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)billhunter

What about adding somthing like that :

The DLNA protocol aims to facilitate the use of certain types of files for DLNA client from a DLNA server. The files are transmitted on the network and automaticaly detected by the clients.

The file types than can be exposed by the DLNA protocol are:

   * Image Codecs: JPEG, PNG
   * Audio Codecs: AC3, AMR, ATRAC3, LPCM, MP3, MPEG4, WMA
   * Video Codecs: MPEG 1, MPEG 2, MPEG 4 Part 2 (a.k.a DivX), MPEG 4 Part 10 (a.k.a H.264), WMV9.
   * Containers: MPEG PS/TS, MP4, ASF for video files …

found on this page This stuff is a bit old (doesn't cover DLNA 1.5 apparently) but it's a start.

212.99.48.166 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I found this page very confusing too. Having learned a bit more about DLNA and UPnP, here is what I think this page should mention:

The Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA) is an industry association that is responsible for defining "interoperability guidelines" to enable sharing of digital media between consumer devices. These guidelines are built upon existing open standards, but the guidelines are private (available for a fee). These guidelines specify a set of restricted ways of using the standards in order to achieve interoperability . The term "DLNA" is often used as a synonym for Universal Plug and Play (UPnP), which is a network protocol for managing digital media . UPnP defines the types of device that DLNA supports ("server", "renderer", "controller") and the mechanisms for publishing and accessing media. The DLNA guidelines then apply a layer of restrictions over the types of media file format, encodings and resolutions that a device must support. AndrewBolt (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

References

Article Accessibility

The article as well as sounding like sales fluff is way too dry, it needs rewriting to include some more accessible text (as well as the hardcore stuff).

that said I think an article on this subject is more than justified and should not be deletedBack ache (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)t

As a start, I have removed all those UPnP mediaservers claiming to be DLNA when they are not. (check DLNA certification for proof).

Sales fluff is a result of people not really understanding what services the protocol stack provides. The readers of this article have seen all of the sales brochures that explain nothing and want the technical details. In short, you can have a whole bunch of devices in your home that are connected over ethernet or Wi-Fi, but you still need a standard way of finding where all the media is and transporting it from where it is stored to where it is displayed. And that all needs to be done with Digital Rights Management in mind. I will find the references and then we can write a more intelligent article that truly informs. kgrr ^talk 12:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

DLNA Standard Accessibility

While DLNA describes the ways that devices can interact to transfer media over networks, the standard does not include captions for video. Some equipment manufacturers have added on non-standard support for one or more caption files. It is hit or miss as to whether equipment can send and receive caption data. People with a hearing loss that need captions cannot depend on a device that is DLNA certified because the DLNA certification does not include captions.

notability

One of the ways to measure a protocol notability is its adoption, I have referenced links to some noteable manfacturers supported it and found information it is currently in over 200 million devices.

There should be no doubt as to the notability of this article. It has significant coverage and there are plenty of sources. We don't need the article to become a collection of links to manufacturers though. kgrr ^talk 12:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

DLNA Certified vs DLNA compliant

Should this article attempt to discuss the differences between DLNA Certified devices (ie those certified by the DLNA) and those which claim to be "DLNA Compliant" (ie those who only claim to support DLNA related services and have not had there device/software go though DLNA Cert testing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosman (talk • contribs) 01:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, some of the software listed as compliant is NOT compliant at all, but only support the UPnP subset, and not the DLNA extensions needed for DLNA compliance. UPnP != DLNA, which pretty much every owner of DLNA certified Sony TVs or BD players can attest to. A clean-up seems to be in order. 65.75.16.254 (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Subaru?

"Subaru_Impreza_WRX_STi" is listed as a member organization, but this article links to a car model (while the others are organizations). Should this be a link to Subaru instead? Mdz (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Open standard?

Is this an open standard? Electron9 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

DLNA certified

Full list of DLNA certified products is here http://www.dlna.org/products Why are XBMC, WMP and others on this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Living_Network_Alliance#DLNA-certified_products ? 178.94.78.195 (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Salvage

I've removed this link from Universal Plug and Play. Perhaps it will useful here as a reference. --Kvng (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

DLNA

Alert: Major OMISSION:

I notice that Google is NOT a promoter member.  (Neither is Apple, but it mentions WHY that is!)

Doesn't SOMEONE know why/why not for Google???? They market their Chromecast-device and numerous Android-based devices, so I'm sure there's a REAL STORY out there somewhere, in regards to DLNA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarasotaslim (talk • contribs) 18:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

DLNA and DNLA ?

I've been redirected to this page from DNLA. Are the two synonymous? Samsung's spec pages refer to DNLA. Thanks for any enlightenment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.17.116.243 (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is, should we delete the DNLA page? Zalunardo8 (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to start the deletion. My guess it was intended as a potential common mis-spelling redirection, so might be worth keeping. It does seem that several people have transposed those letters. Reminds me of how someone confused a file server with a storage area network, and then invented NAS as a backronym. The Samsung spec I see does spell it as DLNA. Probably no need for a disambig page since the only other one I found was the Delaware Nursery & Landscape Association which does not even have an article on Wikipedia. One other one was a transposition that I fixed. W Nowicki (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input W Nowicki, I will make the request for deletion. I agree with you it must have been intended as a re-direct for people misspelling DLNA, but it could also cause confusion whether both acronyms mean the same. So deleting it would be best, in my opinion. Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Gaming Consoles

I've been looking into if DLNA is supported by the new gaming consoles - Xbox One, PS4 specifically, and it seems neither supports DLNA or UPNP. It could potentially be supported in future updates. Seeing as DLNA on the original Xbox 360 and PS3 are both important home entertainment devices compatible with UPNP and DLNA, would this be notable enough to add to the article? Shaded0 (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Relevant information regarding DLNA should be added to the article if you cite reliable sources. If it is personal observation or speculation about the future, it should not be added generally, per guidelines like WP:NOT. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Not 5, "Installed base of DLNA devices exceeds 440mn", do not work.

Not 5, "Installed base of DLNA devices exceeds 440mn", do not work. --Kentlarserik (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Architecture MIA

Good grief, there's not a single paragraph in the lead to rival even the most ruthlessly chartjunk-laden architectural slideware—a low bar indeed. Would I be entirely mistaken to take DLNA as a an acronym forest designed to dull the mind of gingerbread-craving children? Certainly not on the basis of how this article now stands. — MaxEnt 16:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Digital Living Network Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612171050/http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/dlna_02.html to http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/dlna_02.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119012205/http://connectedworldmag.com/latestNews.aspx?id=NEWS110113094319013 to http://www.connectedworldmag.com/latestNews.aspx?id=NEWS110113094319013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104134542/http://www.instat.com/abstract.asp?id=99&SKU=IN1004647RC to http://www.instat.com/abstract.asp?id=99&SKU=IN1004647RC
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130819200126/http://www.dlna.org/dlna-for-industry/become-a-member/certification-program to http://www.dlna.org/dlna-for-industry/become-a-member/certification-program
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128213111/http://www.awox.com:80/store.php to http://www.awox.com/store.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707202247/http://www.awox.com/middleware_technologies.php to http://www.awox.com/middleware_technologies.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110214111044/http://www.cyberlink.com:80/products/softdma/overview_en_US.html to http://www.cyberlink.com/products/softdma/overview_en_US.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110214110938/http://www.cyberlink.com:80/products/cyberlink-media-server/overview_en_US.html to http://www.cyberlink.com/products/cyberlink-media-server/overview_en_US.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215001825/http://www.samsung.com:80/global/allshare/pcsw/ to http://www.samsung.com/global/allshare/pcsw/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Digital Living Network Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101223020825/http://www.dlna.org/industry/certification/guidelines to http://www.dlna.org/industry/certification/guidelines
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222225946/http://www.dlna.org/industry/why_dlna/key_components/network/ to http://www.dlna.org/industry/why_dlna/key_components/network/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222220735/http://www.dlna.org/industry/why_dlna/key_components/device_discovery/ to http://www.dlna.org/industry/why_dlna/key_components/device_discovery/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222225117/http://www.dlna.org/industry/why_dlna/key_components/media_format/ to http://www.dlna.org/industry/why_dlna/key_components/media_format/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222224247/http://www.dlna.org/industry/why_dlna/key_components/media_mgmt/ to http://www.dlna.org/industry/why_dlna/key_components/media_mgmt/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222225410/http://www.dlna.org/industry/why_dlna/key_components/drm/ to http://www.dlna.org/industry/why_dlna/key_components/drm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222230011/http://www.dlna.org/industry/why_dlna/key_components/manageability/ to http://www.dlna.org/industry/why_dlna/key_components/manageability/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)