See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 10 September 2013
<scribe> Scribe: joesteele
<markw> Yes, I'm going
is anyone going to the F2F
johnsim: not sure whether Adrian is going -- think he is
jerry: believe he is attending
do we have a timeslot scheduled?
jdsmith: believe we have
something scheduled for Thursday
... should figure out what we want to accomplish
... should take advantage of being together
johnsim: some topics are hard to
do over the phone
... should come up with a list
http://www.w3.org/2013/09/03-html-media-minutes.html
any objections?
scribe: any corrections?
... mark as approved
https://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/
any information on Adrian's actions?
Adrian is not here
jdsmith: have not heard much -- he has been out for family reasons
johnsim: working on it with David
ddorwin: this is the ISOBMFF data format issue
johnsim: growing consensus that
is we are talking about CENC we should just have the
concatenated PSSH boxes rather than the generic approach of the
entire SINF
... suggested at the last TPAC
<markw> +1
johnsim: my proposal would be to
return to the old CENC definition
... in the section where we talk about formats
... we could make that normative sections be specific to
CENC
joesteele: we are ok with that position
johnsim: does that resolve my action?
ddorwin: there were some other
issues with the text I identified
... you proposed some revised text, that cleaned up some things
but raised other issues
... we need to decide how/whether other key systems are
supported
johnsim: in other words what the initData would be for ClearKey
ddorwin: this was one of the
issues
... could just define a generic one and ClearKey would happen
to use that as well
johnsim: a generic PSSH would have a format would be defined in the spec for ClearKey?
ddorwin: that is one issue, there is a list in the bug
johnsim: so the action is to go
through the bug issues and highlight the ones that go away with
CENC
... and propose solutions to the remainders
<ddorwin> ^ correct
ddorwin: is is an issue but has
been punting forward -- need impl feedback
... in every agenda
joesteele: no resolution yet
s/ye /yet/
johnsim: what led us to suggest this?
ddorwin: discussion about a year
ago
... might add extra work, might not be possible
... my opinion is that we should keep it in
... links is in the issue (e.g. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016)
here is the link to the issue -- https://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/issues/1
any progress?
<ddorwin> I was wrong - 7 months ago.
scribe: this would be Adrian so no progress
johnsim: no one on the call to address this I think -- need someone saavy in W3C arcana
ddorwin: obligation to update the spec, but not sure what the downside is
johnsim: so what do we need to do to publish the heartbeat?
joesteele: don't believe any specific bugs needed to be in the hearbeat, no specific changes needed, ...
joesteele: does anyone have any specific bugs they want o go over?
ddorwin: Adrian had the
same-origin bug which I reviewed
... also opened the ClearKey bug about the key format
<ddorwin> Clear Key format bug: https://www.w3.org/bugzilla_public/show_bug.cgi?id=17682
joesteele: why the change here?
ddorwin: some ambiguity about key
id, wanted to specify things more
... will make implementations easier and interoperable
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21798
ddorwin: on me to document -
people can continue the discussion in the bug
... this will spark more discussion
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17673
joesteele: john will do more investigation before we close this out
ddorwin: john do you want a new
date?
... I will change the date to next week
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22909
ddorwin: Adrian closed the
privacy bug
... 22910
... tjoesteele: here is a discrepancy with 20965 the master
bug, we should either close 909 or close 910
... either this was an oversight or there was proposed text for
one and not the other
joesteele: should get Adrians feedback on that
ddorwin: I will update the bug
PetrPeterka: can we talk about 17615
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17615
PetrPeterka: one model is that
DRM as explicit out of band channel, other model is that all
comms go through the browser
... some changes came later to exclude the out-of-band
model
... text in the abstract that explicitly prevents this
... supporting both models should not require architectural
changes
... just need to return the right status
<ddorwin> The original discussion was that the out-of-band mode was *already* supported by HTML5 media elements
<markw> david is saying just what I was going to say
ddorwin: what is the new
information that you think changes this?
... taking out needKey and other messages makes this not EME
anymore
PetrPeterka: goal is to make this
interoperable and remove app-specific knowledge
... eg. MPEG-DASH with CENC could just provide the stream to
the DRM and say "handle this - I don't know much"
<ddorwin> Interoperable is the key - the two modes are not interoperable. Applications written for one would not be interoperable with the other.
PetrPeterka: application designer has to treat either model in the same way without pushing too much information into the app
ddorwin: that is the issue -- application does have to know
PetrPeterka: application could
say "take care of the keys" and not have to deal with it
... in some cases the app would have to be involved, in others
the DRM could just handle it
markw: is that a realistic
scenario? that would imply the app provider has both ends of
the system
... they also have a front-end server which talks to the back
end-server correctly
... distinguishing between front-end DRM server and back-end
DRM server
PetrPeterka: why does the
application have to make that decision?
... today there are operators that are using multiple
DRMs
... so they would have multiple license servers
markw: the point of EME was to make it simpler for application providers to support multiple DRMs
PetrPeterka: think we have the
same goal, that app should not be aware of those
differences
... service providers want to choose which DRMs they
support
... and invoke te matching services based on their needs
markw: intention was to make it
easier for apps to support multiple DRMs -- that was the idea
behind the model
... providers are restricted to the models they support
... if you add additional models it makes it more
complicated
PetrPeterka: this is what I am missing -- from my point of view the application generates the message and either the CDM handles it or it does not.
markw: I am including the server side when I say application
BobLund: want to comment on
whether service proivders want to choose the DRMs they
use
... our members want and need to support the clients they
provide service to
... this means they have to support a set of DRMs and want to
support a common set of functionality
... EME as defined does a good job of that
PetrPeterka: at the recent CableLabs conference I heard opposite to this, that MSOs want to choose the DRMs and that browsers have already made they choices and will want to stick with them
BobLund: have to distinguish
between the goals with the leased equipments and retail
euqipment
... in the legacy environment they have already started to
deliver DRM
... this will be the same set as the retail devices
... IP delivery is all about delivering to the non-legacy
devices
PetrPeterka: I am not talking
about the legacy devices, I am talking about the IP devices
today
... those devices have built-in DRM of their choise
BobLund: I would not agree
pal: reading the bug -- what are
the proposed changes?
... is it just to remove the informative statement in the
introduction?
PetrPeterka: that was the main
request I believe
... there was also the issue of informing the browser that the
key has been acquired
pal: difference between normative and informative changes to the spec
PetrPeterka: first is an
informative change
... not familiar with the details of the key request today to
tell the browser that the key has been requested
pal: would be good to know the
full consequences of these changes
... please provide more details
markw: briefly - a service
provider who thinks they can convince every provider to support
their DRM is out of luck
... in the model we have, there is an ability to message the
browser that no more key request is needed
... we should get the sevice providers to support this
model
PetrPeterka: model today allows
for this existing key model right?
... then the end result to the API is the same?
markw: the spirit of the spec
disagrees, but the letter allows it
... browser providers might not agree with this
PetrPeterka: one provider on the call who wants a different model -- why should we forbid?
ddorwin: should we call that EME compatible?
PetrPeterka: but it meets the same normative requirements? why would it not be compatible?
ddorwin: what would be the point of that level of interop if it is not really interoperabl?
<markw> @pal The document describes the architecture as well as the API
<ddorwin> From the abstract: "License/key exchange is controlled by the application…" This was also an important design requirement. This is not the case with the second model.
<ddorwin> Applications should be able to expect consistent behavior, such as (as mentioned earlier) being able to proxy the license requests through its front end server.
<ddorwin> Reiterating what was just said: Regardless of what the spec says, key systems using the other model are unlikely to be supported by applications written for the application-driven EME model.
<ddorwin> As discussed in the email thread, there are concerns related to origin, etc. with out-of-band license exchanges.
<markw> +1 to what david said
joesteele: cutting off
conversation -- please continue via email or at next weeks
meeting!
... thanks all!
<pal> "Reiterating what was just said: Regardless of what the spec says, key systems using the other model are unlikely to be supported by applications written for the application-driven EME."
s/we (Adobe)/joesteele: we/
trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/go aways/go away/ FAILED: s/ye /yet/ Succeeded: s/229010/22910/ Succeeded: s/two weeks hence/next week/ Succeeded: s/explcitly/explicitly/ Succeeded: s/pal:/PetrPeterka:/ Succeeded: s/strea to/stream to/ Succeeded: s/ocrreclty/correctly/ Succeeded: s/application-driven EME/application-driven EME model/ Succeeded: s/we (Adobe)/joesteele: we/ FAILED: s/we (Adobe)/joesteele: we/ Succeeded: s/resolution ye/resolution yet/ Succeeded: s/here is/joesteele: here is/ Succeeded: s/does anyone/joesteele: does anyone/ Succeeded: s/other makes/other messages makes/ Succeeded: s/thinkg/thinks/ Succeeded: s/their is/there is/ Succeeded: s/cutting off/joesteele: cutting off/ Succeeded: s/thanks/joesteele: thanks/ Found Scribe: joesteele Inferring ScribeNick: joesteele Default Present: +1.425.269.aaaa, Mark_Watson, +1.858.342.aabb, davide, ddorwin, pal, [Adobe], [Microsoft], BobLund, +1.425.269.aacc Present: +1.425.269.aaaa Mark_Watson +1.858.342.aabb davide ddorwin pal [Adobe] [Microsoft] BobLund +1.425.269.aacc Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Sep/0014.html Found Date: 10 Sep 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/09/10-html-media-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]