HTML Media Task Force Teleconference -- 16 Oct 2012

<trackbot> Date: 16 October 2012

<scribe> ScribeNick: adrianba

<scribe> Scribe: Adrian Bateman

Roll call, introductions and selection of scribe

paulc: done

Minutes from Oct 2

paulc: i wasn't at that meeting so i don't have comments

<markw> aaff is markw

http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-html-media-minutes.html

Review of action items

paulc: the two outstanding are later on the agenda

TPAC meeting plans

paulc: there is discussion on the list about who is going to TPAC
... you may already know that we're anticipating both MSE and EME meeting at TPAC
... and there are notes on the wiki asking for at least 90 minutes on the Thursday
... for those who haven't been to a HTML WG F2F before
... the actual agenda is decided at 9am on the first day
... we take the topics from the wiki and decide how to organise ourselves
... we do have two meeting rooms

<paulc> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/TPAC2012

paulc: this page has the possible topics for EME and MSE
... assume non-overlapping consecutive sessions
... expecting more people putting more discussion on here
... there is an agenda with times but no topics - some will be anchored because they're with other groups
... but at 9am on Thursday well decide based on who is in the room which topics we want to work on
... so i would like to recommend that the editors for EME come to the TPAC meeting having triaged the outstanding bugs
... so that we know which items we're going to talk about
... let's try to get that done before the meeting on the archive
... questions?
... are the editors willing to step up and organise the bugs?

<markw> yes, for my part

yes

<ddorwin> yes

paulc: i will volunteer to possibly chair if that's what you want
... i believe that the rooms will have a telcon ability

baseline documents and bugzilla info

paulc: spec http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html
... updated sep 15
... do the editors have comments on the current status?

ddorwin: no comments

paulc: current bugs http://tinyurl.com/7tfambo
... this is the set i think we need to categorise and deal with at tpac

Actions from the previous meeting

paulc: two outstanding tracking actions

ACTION-3?

<trackbot> ACTION-3 -- John Simmons to propose resolution to bug 17682 -- due 2012-09-11 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/3

johnsim: i sent a proposal for this to the editors yesterday
... waiting for some feedback from the editors before updating the bug

paulc: once you update the bug feel free to close the action and provide a link to the comment

ACTION-6?

<trackbot> ACTION-6 -- Aaron Colwell to give a couple of examples for section 2 -- due 2012-09-04 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/6

paulc: not sure which bug or item this is related to
... wondering if this was resolved by one of the recent postings to the list

acolwell: not sure which issue this at the moment
... will need to review the minutes

paulc: was created on aug 28
... it is in the minutes for aug 28 - it is an MSE item
... https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18575

Recent threads from the list

paulc: Bug 17199 - Provide examples for and get feedback on Key Release
... proposal from mark is in the bug
... https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17199

<ddorwin> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17199#c8

paulc: in the last large comment

markw: i only posted this yesterday - not expecting feedback yet

paulc: this is an item where people should look at the comment and propose that we should have this on the tpac agenda

markw: one thing to highlight - this was a detailed proposal based on the outline earlier in the comments
... the behaviour of key release when the browser is closed is new
... one way is with the close() method but another is if the object is destroyed for another reason
... there may be browser implementation issues with this part
... and so feedback from implementers on this part would be extremely valuable

paulc: Bug 17660 � Request to add parameters to createSession (bug 17660)

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17660

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Oct/0031.html

paulc: this was from joe steele
... he's provided an example - don't believe there has been a reply
... do we want to do anything about this now?

ddorwin: there was one reply

<ddorwin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Oct/0033.html

paulc: assume this will continue by email
... looks like a possible tpac topic
... Bug 17470 - Provide specific guidance on when generateKeyRequest should be called

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17470

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Oct/0029.html

paulc: joe was asked to provide sample code
... no replies here
... does anyone have any comments?

joesteele: have not had time to reply to the previous issue - read the response this morning

paulc: will you be at tpac?

joesteele: not this time

paulc: it would help if you could try to push these along

joesteele: for the example one, if nobody has any problems with the example then if we include that i think we're good
... if anyone wants anything else, let me know
... the earlier one, 17660 about additional parameters, i'll respond to this thread
... if there's a lot of pushback we could defer this to later
... to a v2 perhaps

Other business

paulc: are there any recent threads people want raised to discuss?

<ddorwin> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19156

ddorwin: i sent one about initialising decoders - 19156
... seemed to be agreement on the thread so will update the bug to say we'll go with this proposal

<paulc> Thread started at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Oct/0001.html

paulc: you're saying there is more consensus in the discussion after the last meeting

ddorwin: yes

paulc: do you plan an update to the spec before tpac?

ddorwin: maybe at tpac

paulc: editors preparing for tpac should put in a category of we have consensus but not yet implemented in the spec
... any other items?

<pal> +q

joesteele: it wasn't clear to me what the consensus was on the changing decoders thread - one of the comments seemed to contradict the message i sent about initiatisation prior to media flowing

ddorwin: i don't recall this being a problem - perhaps one of the options was to disallow that but this wasn't chosen

joesteele: i will send an email to you on that

pal: question on process
... is the goal to close all the issues before FPWD?

paulc: i don't think we have to but i don't think we have consensus on that
... this is an important topic to discuss at tpac
... if the editors triage the bugs they might be able to come to tpac saying that if they flatten certain issues
... then at that point we should go back to the WG and ask for a FPWD
... my opinion is that we don't have to flatten all the issues

acolwell: i'd be fine with that

<Simmons> +1

acolwell: it depends how important people believe certain bugs are

<MartinSoukup> +1

pal: let's assume there is an issue where there appears to be consensus
... but the editors don't get to that
... will we resolve this before fpwd?

paulc: i think the tpac discussion will include time about what happens next
... i think the reason for wanting to meet on thursday is to allow the editors to meet on friday to come up with a plan
... and the editors should track during the session what work will need to be done

pal: looking at issue 16544

<pal> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16544

pal: i think this is a pretty important clarification
... and would be good if it made it into the spec before fpwd

paulc: if this on your work queue markw?

markw: yes

paulc: pal, is this one of a kind or is this one of many?

pal: i think this one is particularly important

paulc: suggest send notes to the list, perhaps a thread for each topic explaining why it is important

markw: i think this one is uncontroversial
... and just needs text - definitely needs to be done before fpwd

johnsim: this is updating because the figure is misleading

pal: i think it's confusing that the responsibility is to not make encrypted frames available
... the point of encrypting is not to make the decrypted frames back to the UA

markw: definitely needs clarified but doesn't specify exactly what any given CDM will do

pal: i agree that the spec not be prescriptive but do need to describe the variations

markw: understood, that's the action outstanding

<paulc> Patent Policy: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-disclosure-requests

paulc: for the general question, are there particular bugs people want before FPWD
... one parameter is that you want to make sure for FPWD where there will be a disclosure requirement
... you want to make sure the spec covers the domain that the final version will cover
... so that members reviewing the spec won't find that it was vague about the scope
... don't know if this applies but would suggest this does need to be done
... any other comments?

ddorwin: that seems like a good way to evaluate - clarifications vs. features

paulc: right - this is important
... without this disclosure requirement is more difficult and might cause people not engaged here to pushback if they think the scope isn't well enough defined
... any other business?

suzie: 16544 - i was personally waiting for this to be addressed
... everyone is very curious about this - i expressed my opinion in the bug
... this is necessary to be clear for people reading for the first time

markw: that will be definitely in the next version

ddorwin: the figure was supposed to be illustrative - if people have suggestions on updating this that would be helpful
... i have an action to update this to also show the new API

paulc: suggestions of how to improve are always welcome but even just saying which parts are hard to understand is useful
... anything else?

Chair and Scribe for next meeting

paulc: the next meeting would occur during tpac and so this will not occur
... the next meeting will be on nov 13 after tpac
... we'll decide at tpac if it makes sense to meet then or if the editors need more time

<MartinSoukup> i can scribe the next meeting if it is Nov 13

paulc: martin, thank you

Adjournment

paulc: thanks everyone
... for those in lyon, i'll see you there
... will make sure zakim information is distributed on this list

- DRAFT -

HTML Media Task Force Teleconference

16 Oct 2012

Attendees

Contents