HTML Media Task Force Teleconference -- 01 Sep 2015

<trackbot> Date: 01 September 2015

<paulc> help present

<paulc> +present paulc

<joesteele> issues with phone this morning?

<markw> +present markw

<jdsmith> jdsmith +present

<paulc> paulc +present

<jdsmith> jdsmith present+

<joesteele> can anyone hear me on the phone?

<paulc> no

<joesteele> arg

<markw> The minutes just generated have markw, joesteele

<markw> Seems to have worked

<markw> Also note that the +present lines aren't getting filtered out of the minutes and neither are the <name> (+)present(+) ones

<paulc> oaky

<paulc> okay

<joesteele_> I don’t seem to be able to connect to the phone this morning

<paulc_> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Aug/0050.html

Media Task Force F2F meeting, TPAC, Sapporo, Japan, Oct 2015

<markw> Yes, I will be there

<BobLund> I will not be there

<paulc_> paulc: Who will be at the F2F meeting?

<joesteele_> I will be there

<paulc_> jdsmith Microsoft is building a corporate plan and it will be ready soon.

<paulc_> paulc: Important item is the block hotel booking ends in early Oct.

MSE and EME heartbeat publications

<paulc_> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Aug/0038.html

<paulc_> paulc: IT has been 5 months since we updated the /TR page. And we have never turned on the EME automatic publishing.

<paulc_> paulc: Can one of the Editors of each document please volunteer to take the lead here?

<paulc_> paulc: We also need to figure out who is going to use the supplied instructions to turn on EME automatic publishing.

<paulc_> markw: What is the tradeoff from a manual TR publication and turning on automatic publications.

<paulc_> paulc: For EME if we turn on EME automatic publication then every Editor's draft will show up on the TR page

<paulc_> markw I would also like for EME to do any controversial change via a pull request.

<paulc_> markw: I want us to agree to undo controversial items and put them in pull requests.

<paulc_> jdsmith: I would prefer to have the TR page and Editors draft more in sync and will take the action to turn on EME automatic publication.

<paulc_> paulc: I will ask Matt to do a manual MSE republication.

<joesteele> scribe: joesteele_

New EME issues related to secure release

<joesteele> scribe: joesteele

paulc: this is issue 79 - 85

<paulc_> this covers issues 79-85

… David is not here so we can’t make decisions, just want to get a feel for what we should be doing

… looks like David has a preference for changing the high-level topic these are related to

… now calling these “tracked” sessions

<paulc_> ISSUE:79: https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/79

… a little nervous about this usage

<paulc_> See TAG finding: https://w3ctag.github.io/unsanctioned-tracking/

ISSUE-79: https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/79

<trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-79 .

paulc: TAG has added a note about unsanctioned tracking, this may be setting the wrong tone

… the TAG has made it clear they think tracking is bad

… e.g.

<paulc_> TAG statement from finding: "•Finds that unsanctioned tracking is actively harmful to the Web, because it is not under the control of users and not transparent.

jdmith: think that is now in the media key session type replacing secure release

… we may want to rename

markw: think that we could — this is hopefully unrelated to what TAG is discussing

… don’t think the TAG considerations apply here

… this is tracking what keys were used and when

… there is potential for misunderstanding

paulc: so will one of you open a new issue and make a suggestion of alternatives?

markw: yes I will do this

jdsmith: we talked about “persistent key usage” which is descriptive of what the feature does

paulc: back to the actual topic of the issues raised by David — he did what I suggested here

… are there any in this batch which Mark or Jerry are willing to assign to themselves and provide a solution? any easy ones?

… only one or two have had any response

… Mark you responded to the architectural one

rrsagent: generate minutes

markw: I don’t have the numbers, but there are a couple of easy ones

… the request for a more detailed description of how this is used, happy to provide that

… might just go on the wiki

paulc: that is issue 84

<paulc_> David's suggestion for more material is in https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/84

paulc: so you took issue 79?

… none of the others are actually assigned

… let’s make some progress by assigning owners

… any others which we could take action on? not right now

markw: yes - couple I could make a pull request on

jdsmith: couple are clarifications - but issue 80 is a fundamental change

… to me tracking by key use is natural, David id redcommedning track by session

<paulc_> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/80

markw: that could be quite complicated

… what you really want is a start time and end time for the keys

… would like to know more about existing (other) implementations

rrsagent: generate minutes

markw: issue 81 is an easy one - I will take responsibility

… I will make a proposal

<paulc_> ISSUE-81 https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/81 - Mark will make a pull request

ISSUE-81 https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/81 - Mark will make a pull request

paulc: let’s summarize

… issue 79 https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/79 — assigne dto Mark

… issue 80 — https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/80

… who is taking that?

markw: I will respond to that

paulc: https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/81 — you said you will do a pull reuqest

… https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/82 - Mark, you and David have had a dialogue here

markw: this raised an issue, the real reaon for that impleemntation is the robustness rules specified by the DRM

… this is true of many other aspects of the spec (e.g. could implement in JS)

… we don’t talk about those aspects of the spec

… what should we talk about with respect to this type of requirement?

markw: higher level question

<paulc_> Note that TAG review https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/85 is blocked by ISSUE-82 and ISSUE-84

paulc: this is one David chose to block the TAG item on?

joesteele: I think this is a dangerous road to go down. We originally left these type of implicit robustness rules out of the spec for good reason. Many other aspects of the spec would fall under this shadow

<paulc_> ISSUE-83 https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/83 is apparently blocked by ISSUE-82

paulc: for now let’s skip over this one

issue 84 https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/84

paulc: this is one where he is asking for more content

… Mark you said you were willing to generate content if we can figure out where

… since this is an easy one, let’s agree to initially put in the wiki

… makes it easier to change going forward

… this would unblock action here

… then we can deal with the question of whether we have enough material

joesteele: +1

paulc: Mark you have carte-blanch to generate the first draft of material

… make sure you update the bug with a ptr to the wiki asking for feeedback