14:57:41 RRSAgent has joined #html-media
14:57:41 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/16-html-media-irc
14:57:43 RRSAgent, make logs public
14:57:43 Zakim has joined #html-media
14:57:45 Zakim, this will be 63342
14:57:46 Meeting: HTML Media Task Force Teleconference
14:57:46 Date: 16 October 2012
14:57:47 ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:59 zakim, this is html_wg
14:57:59 "html_wg" matches HTML_WG(HTMLT)11:00AM, and HTML_WG()11:00AM, adrianba
14:58:14 zakim, this is media
14:58:14 adrianba, I see HTML_WG()11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be media".
14:58:46 Clarke has joined #html-media
14:58:47 HTML_WG()11:00AM has now started
14:58:54 + +1.650.525.aaaa
14:59:05 + +1.425.269.aabb
14:59:38 + +1.303.661.aacc
14:59:39 zakim, dial matt-voip
14:59:39 ok, matt; the call is being made
14:59:40 +Matt
14:59:45 zakim, mute me
14:59:45 Matt should now be muted
14:59:51 zakim, aacc is me
14:59:51 +Clarke; got it
15:00:12 +[Microsoft]
15:00:22 zakim, [microsoft] has adrianba, paulc
15:00:22 +adrianba, paulc; got it
15:00:30 zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:30 On the phone I see +1.650.525.aaaa, +1.425.269.aabb, Clarke, Matt (muted), [Microsoft]
15:00:33 [Microsoft] has adrianba, paulc
15:00:43 zakim, I am aaaa
15:00:43 +pal; got it
15:01:01 zakim, aabb is johnsim
15:01:01 +johnsim; got it
15:01:12 + +1.425.202.aadd
15:02:09 Suzie has joined #html-media
15:02:12 zakim, who is noisy?
15:02:12 I am sorry, adrianba; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now
15:02:31 zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:31 On the phone I see pal, johnsim, Clarke, Matt (muted), [Microsoft], +1.425.202.aadd
15:02:33 [Microsoft] has adrianba, paulc
15:02:44 markw has joined #html-media
15:02:51 +Aaron_Colwell
15:03:18 BobLund has joined #html-media
15:03:19 zakim, aadd is me
15:03:19 +ddorwin; got it
15:03:49 ScribeNick: adrianba
15:03:53 Scribe: Adrian Bateman
15:03:56 Chair: Paul Cotton
15:04:01 strobe has joined #html-media
15:04:05 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Oct/0032.html
15:04:15 + +1.213.234.aaee
15:04:34 TOPIC: Roll call, introductions and selection of scribe
15:04:36 Zakim, +1.213.234. is me
15:04:36 +Suzie; got it
15:04:43 + +1.415.867.aaff
15:04:44 paulc: done
15:04:51 TOPIC: Minutes from Oct 2
15:04:54 +??P35
15:05:02 + +1.813.728.aagg
15:05:04 paulc: i wasn't at that meeting so i don't have comments
15:05:04 aaff is markw
15:05:12 zakim, aaff is markw
15:05:12 +markw; got it
15:05:13 zakim, ??p35 is me
15:05:13 +BobLund; got it
15:05:14 http://www.w3.org/2012/10/02-html-media-minutes.html
15:05:20 TOPIC: Review of action items
15:05:21 Zakim, +1.813.728 is me
15:05:21 +strobe; got it
15:05:27 paulc: the two outstanding are later on the agenda
15:05:34 TOPIC: TPAC meeting plans
15:05:46 paulc: there is discussion on the list about who is going to TPAC
15:06:04 ... you may already know that we're anticipating both MSE and EME meeting at TPAC
15:06:21 ... and there are notes on the wiki asking for at least 90 minutes on the Thursday
15:06:30 ... for those who haven't been to a HTML WG F2F before
15:06:37 ... the actual agenda is decided at 9am on the first day
15:06:50 ... we take the topics from the wiki and decide how to organise ourselves
15:06:55 ... we do have two meeting rooms
15:07:39 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/TPAC2012
15:08:03 paulc: this page has the possible topics for EME and MSE
15:08:05 -johnsim
15:08:14 ... assume non-overlapping consecutive sessions
15:08:26 ... expecting more people putting more discussion on here
15:08:45 ... there is an agenda with times but no topics - some will be anchored because they're with other groups
15:09:00 ... but at 9am on Thursday well decide based on who is in the room which topics we want to work on
15:09:17 ... so i would like to recommend that the editors for EME come to the TPAC meeting having triaged the outstanding bugs
15:09:25 ... so that we know which items we're going to talk about
15:09:36 ... let's try to get that done before the meeting on the archive
15:09:41 ...questions?
15:09:48 q?
15:10:08 paulc: are the editors willing to step up and organise the bugs?
15:10:09 yes, for my part
15:10:12 yes
15:10:19 yes
15:10:37 paulc: i will volunteer to possibly chair if that's what you want
15:10:46 ... i believe that the rooms will have a telcon ability
15:11:25 +[Microsoft.a]
15:11:32 TOPIC: baseline documents and bugzilla info
15:11:49 paulc: spec http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html
15:11:57 ... updated sep 15
15:12:20 paulc: do the editors have comments on the current status?
15:12:36 ddorwin: no comments
15:12:54 paulc: current bugs http://tinyurl.com/7tfambo
15:13:06 ... this is the set i think we need to categorise and deal with at tpac
15:13:19 TOPIC: Actions from the previous meeting
15:13:32 paulc: two outstanding tracking actions
15:13:33 ACTION-3?
15:13:33 ACTION-3 -- John Simmons to propose resolution to bug 17682 -- due 2012-09-11 -- OPEN
15:13:33 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/3
15:14:02 johnsim: i sent a proposal for this to the editors yesterday
15:14:12 ... waiting for some feedback from the editors before updating the bug
15:14:39 paulc: once you update the bug feel free to close the action and provide a link to the comment
15:14:44 ACTION-6?
15:14:44 ACTION-6 -- Aaron Colwell to give a couple of examples for section 2 -- due 2012-09-04 -- OPEN
15:14:44 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/6
15:14:50 zakim, who is noisy?
15:14:50 I am sorry, matt; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now
15:15:23 paulc: not sure which bug or item this is related to
15:15:38 ... wondering if this was resolved by one of the recent postings to the list
15:15:52 acolwell: not sure which issue this at the moment
15:16:19 ... will need to review the minutes
15:16:24 paulc: was created on aug 28
15:17:31 MartinSoukup has joined #html-media
15:17:45 Simmons has joined #html-media
15:18:21 ... it is in the minutes for aug 28 - it is an MSE item
15:19:47 ... https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18575
15:20:14 TOPIC: Recent threads from the list
15:20:25 paulc: Bug 17199 - Provide examples for and get feedback on Key Release
15:20:42 paulc: proposal from mark is in the bug
15:20:45 ... https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17199
15:21:04 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17199#c8
15:21:09 ... in the last large comment
15:21:20 markw: i only posted this yesterday - not expecting feedback yet
15:21:41 paulc: this is an item where people should look at the comment and propose that we should have this on the tpac agenda
15:22:00 markw: one thing to highlight - this was a detailed proposal based on the outline earlier in the comments
15:22:14 ... the behaviour of key release when the browser is closed is new
15:22:35 ... one way is with the close() method but another is if the object is destroyed for another reason
15:22:43 ... there may be browser implementation issues with this part
15:22:57 ... and so feedback from implementers on this part would be extremely valuable
15:23:09 paulc: Bug 17660 – Request to add parameters to createSession (bug 17660)
15:23:18 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17660
15:23:25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Oct/0031.html
15:23:48 paulc: this was from joe steele
15:24:06 ... he's provided an example - don't believe there has been a reply
15:24:14 ... do we want to do anything about this now?
15:24:17 ddorwin: there was one reply
15:24:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Oct/0033.html
15:24:50 zakim, mute me
15:24:50 BobLund should now be muted
15:24:52 paulc: assume this will continue by email
15:25:03 ... looks like a possible tpac topic
15:25:16 paulc: Bug 17470 - Provide specific guidance on when generateKeyRequest should be called
15:25:22 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17470
15:25:28 + +1.408.536.aahh
15:25:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Oct/0029.html
15:25:40 paulc: joe was asked to provide sample code
15:25:51 ... no replies here
15:26:03 ... does anyone have any comments?
15:26:21 zakim, aahh is Joe_Steele
15:26:21 +Joe_Steele; got it
15:26:57 joesteele: have not had time to reply to the previous issue - read the response this morning
15:27:02 paulc: will you be at tpac?
15:27:08 joesteele: not this time
15:27:19 paulc: it would help if you could try to push these along
15:27:47 joesteele: for the example one, if nobody has any problems with the example then if we include that i think we're good
15:28:03 ... if anyone wants anything else, let me know
15:28:26 ... the earlier one, 17660 about additional parameters, i'll respond to this thread
15:28:36 ... if there's a lot of pushback we could defer this to later
15:28:43 ... to a v2 perhaps
15:28:55 TOPIC: Other business
15:29:05 paulc: are there any recent threads people want raised to discuss?
15:29:17 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19156
15:29:25 ddorwin: i sent one about initialising decoders - 19156
15:29:39 ... seemed to be agreement on the thread so will update the bug to say we'll go with this proposal
15:29:44 + +1.613.287.aaii
15:29:50 zakim, aaii is me
15:29:50 +MartinSoukup; got it
15:30:00 Thread started at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2012Oct/0001.html
15:30:08 paulc: you're saying there is more consensus in the discussion after the last meeting
15:30:10 ddorwin: yes
15:30:19 paulc: do you plan an update to the spec before tpac?
15:30:25 ddorwin: maybe at tpac
15:31:05 paulc: editors preparing for tpac should put in a category of we have consensus but not yet implemented in the spec
15:31:12 paulc: any other items?
15:31:17 +q
15:31:47 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
15:32:14 ddorwin: i don't recall this being a problem - perhaps one of the options was to disallow that but this wasn't chosen
15:32:23 joesteele: i will send an email to you on that
15:32:26 q?
15:32:32 ack pal
15:32:41 pal: question on process
15:32:53 ... is the goal to close all the issues before FPWD?
15:33:03 paulc: i don't think we have to but i don't think we have consensus on that
15:33:05 zakim, who is noisy?
15:33:05 I am sorry, matt; I don't have the necessary resources to track talkers right now
15:33:14 ... this is an important topic to discuss at tpac
15:33:29 ... if the editors triage the bugs they might be able to come to tpac saying that if they flatten certain issues
15:33:42 ... then at that point we should go back to the WG and ask for a FPWD
15:33:51 ... my opinion is that we don't have to flatten all the issues
15:33:52 +1
15:34:04 acolwell: i'd be fine with that
15:34:14 +1
15:34:16 ... it depends how important people believe certain bugs are
15:34:18 +1
15:34:26 q+
15:34:32 ack pal
15:34:47 pal: let's assume there is an issue where there appears to be consensus
15:34:57 ... but the editors don't get to that
15:35:06 ... will we resolve this before fpwd?
15:35:18 paulc: i think the tpac discussion will include time about what happens next
15:35:37 ... 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
15:35:52 ... and the editors should track during the session what work will need to be done
15:36:22 pal: looking at issue 16544
15:36:22 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16544
15:36:39 pal: i think this is a pretty important clarification
15:36:48 ... and would be good if it made it into the spec before fpwd
15:37:08 paulc: if this on your work queue markw?
15:37:16 markw: yes
15:37:42 paulc: pal, is this one of a kind or is this one of many?
15:37:56 pal: i think this one is particularly important
15:37:58 paulc
15:38:02 s/paulc//
15:38:20 paulc: suggest send notes to the list, perhaps a thread for each topic explaining why it is important
15:38:31 markw: i think this one is uncontroversial
15:38:44 ... and just needs text - definitely needs to be done before fpwd
15:39:00 johnsim: this is updating because the figure is misleading
15:39:21 pal: i think it's confusing that the responsibility is to not make encrypted frames available
15:39:44 ... the point of encrypting is not to make the decrypted frames back to the UA
15:40:02 markw: definitely needs clarified but doesn't specify exactly what any given CDM will do
15:40:28 pal: i agree that the spec not be prescriptive but do need to describe the variations
15:40:38 markw: understood, that's the action outstanding
15:40:53 Patent Policy: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-disclosure-requests
15:40:55 paulc: for the general question, are there particular bugs people want before FPWD
15:41:15 ... one parameter is that you want to make sure for FPWD where there will be a disclosure requirement
15:41:40 ... you want to make sure the spec covers the domain that the final version will cover
15:41:59 ... so that members reviewing the spec won't find that it was vague about the scope
15:42:14 ... don't know if this applies but would suggest this does need to be done
15:42:22 paulc: any other comments?
15:42:42 ddorwin: that seems like a good way to evaluate - clarifications vs. features
15:42:49 paulc: right - this is important
15:43:16 ... 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
15:43:23 paulc: any other business?
15:43:43 suzie: 16544 - i was personally waiting for this to be addressed
15:44:00 ... everyone is very curious about this - i expressed my opinion in the bug
15:44:14 ... this is necessary to be clear for people reading for the first time
15:44:22 markw: that will be definitely in the next version
15:44:46 ddorwin: the figure was supposed to be illustrative - if people have suggestions on updating this that would be helpful
15:45:01 ... i have an action to update this to also show the new API
15:45:30 paulc: suggestions of how to improve are always welcome but even just saying which parts are hard to understand is useful
15:45:34 paulc: anything else?
15:45:44 TOPIC: Chair and Scribe for next meeting
15:45:58 paulc: the next meeting would occur during tpac and so this will not occur
15:46:08