14:44:07 RRSAgent has joined #mediawg 14:44:07 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/02/09-mediawg-irc 14:44:10 Zakim has joined #mediawg 14:44:18 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:44:27 Meeting: Media WG Teleconference 14:44:39 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-wg/2021Feb/0004.html 14:58:46 chcunningham has joined #mediawg 14:58:54 present+ 15:00:01 present+ Francois 15:01:06 present+ Chris_Needham 15:02:02 present+ Francois_Beaufort, Mark_Watson, Mounir_Lamouri, Peng_Liu, Rijubrata_Bhaumik, Jer_Noble 15:02:06 PengLiu has joined #mediawg 15:02:06 present+ 15:02:21 Chair: Mounir, Jer 15:03:13 present+ Greg_Freedman 15:03:53 scribenick: cpn 15:04:12 Topic: Survey on registries 15:04:22 -> https://github.com/w3c/media-wg/issues/26 Issue #26 Group registries survey 15:04:49 Francois: W3C process isn't good on registries. MSE and EME have accompanying registries 15:05:07 ... They've been published as WG notes 15:05:15 ... This is a non-normative spec, as a list of things 15:05:36 .. Different groups do different things with registries, Rec track may not be a good fit 15:05:52 ... Registries need to change once in a while. Looking at changing the process to accommodate registries 15:06:00 ... We want feedback from groups 15:06:23 ... The GH issue asks a few questions, so I'd like feedback from this group 15:06:31 riju has joined #mediawg 15:06:39 ... You can contribute to the W3C Process CG directly individually 15:06:50 riju_ has joined #mediawg 15:07:08 q+ 15:07:10 ... Is there a need for a CR phase for registries. If the registry is just a table of entries, is it enough to go ahead and skip the CR phase? 15:07:14 jernoble has joined #mediawg 15:07:18 ack chcunningham 15:07:48 ChrisC: If we were to pursue CR for registries, what's the process for updating the registry beyond the lifetime of the group charter? 15:08:29 Francois: The process accommodates that now better than before. When a WG published a doc, we'll keep the WG around in a dormant mode, and the WG can update the document as needed 15:08:40 ... If the WG is no longer around, W3C itself can update it on request 15:09:14 ChrisC: It's unclear if you'd need to go to Rec again 15:09:51 Francois: Do we need an easy path to update the Rec? We simplify the process by skipping CR without requiring wide review 15:10:10 ... My own feeling is that CR doesn't necessarily need a CR phase 15:10:35 ChrisC: That resonates with me. I anticipate creating a registry for Web Codecs, similar to the MSE byte stream registry 15:10:44 ... I don't see a benefit to adding more process 15:11:21 Francois: I'll select the "Registries do not need a CR phase to experimentally validate the Working Draft before requesting AC approval." option 15:11:22 markw has joined #mediawg 15:11:55 Francois: How should patent policy apply to registries? Should there be a separate track for registries? 15:12:15 q+ 15:12:24 gregwf has joined #mediawg 15:12:25 ack chcunningham 15:12:52 ChrisC: I don't have legal experience to answer that. For Google, maybe a lawyer would weigh in on the importants of patent inclusion for registries 15:13:22 Francois: If the group doesn't feel it can give a view, I'll select "no opinion" 15:13:58 q+ 15:14:02 Francois: Next, registry definition tables. In some cases the defintions are separate from the table. Or should we prefer to keep them together? 15:14:07 ack jernoble 15:14:27 Jer: The EME and MSE examples have a document that points to other documents. Is that what you mean? 15:14:43 Francois: It's more about the definition of the column headers 15:15:05 Jer: I wouldn't want to pull the entire content of the registry into a single document 15:15:18 q+ 15:15:59 Francois: You could keep the requirements for the entries in the registry document 15:16:00 q- 15:16:16 ... I saw this as about linking to a real rec-track spec with the requirements 15:16:23 Jer: Makes sense to me 15:16:41 Francois: I suggest we wouldn't use this 15:17:05 ... If you're all OK, I'll reply to the survey and forward on your questions 15:17:33 Topic: Web Codecs call for consensus 15:17:45 Mounir: I want to check in if anyone wants to discuss this 15:17:55 ... The CfC is to move Web Codecs to the Media WG 15:18:05 ... and make a FPWD 15:18:14 q+ 15:18:23 scribe+ 15:18:26 ack cpn 15:18:53 q+ 15:18:53 cpn: Do you feel that the incubation phase has achieved the overall goal of shaping the spec? 15:19:31 Mounir: We asked the editors, their feedback is that there would be no expected change. The main use cases: video playback and communication use cases are well understood 15:19:45 ... We have less feedback on gaming or advanced audio processing, e.g., Ableton type software 15:19:59 ... We anticipate this won't change the API shape significantly 15:20:26 present+ Eric_Carlson, Gary_Katsevman 15:20:29 ChrisC: I agree with that. There's a number of open questions in GH, but the skeleton the API with video encoder and decoder are pretty stable 15:21:03 q+ 15:21:04 Mounir: I believe Chrome has an origin trial, which is a sign the incubation phase is ending 15:21:08 ack chcunningham 15:21:40 ChrisC: Below all the codec interfaces is VideoTrackReader. There's an issue to deprecate this in favour of the media stream processing track, a separate spec incubated by the WebRTC WG 15:22:04 ... Conceptually its the same, you get audio and video frames. Their API shape was better, you can find out more in the GH issue 15:22:10 ack tidoust 15:22:52 Francois: If the CfC passes, I'd like to know what you think about keeping the document in /TR synchronized with the editor's draft. This can now be automated 15:23:22 q+ 15:23:26 ... Some groups don't like that, but others do. It affects Web Codecs, but also other Media WG deliverables 15:23:44 ChrisC: I support keeping them synchronized 15:24:04 Mounir: Don't we already do that for our other specs? 15:24:36 Francois: I may need to check for a previous resolution 15:24:59 ... For MSE and EME we haven't published anything yet under the Media WG 15:25:11 Mounir: It would be good to have a group position instead of doing it per-spec 15:25:30 q+ 15:25:38 q- chcunningham 15:25:39 ack jernoble 15:26:01 Jer: We could raise this on a GitHub issue to have the discussion 15:26:17 q? 15:26:49 Topic: AOB 15:26:49 q+ 15:26:59 Mounir: Anything else for today? 15:27:02 ack chcunningham 15:27:22 ChrisC: Media Capabilities spec has an issue and PR open to add WebRTC encoding and decoding info 15:27:36 ... This has been discussed with the WebRTC WG, they're supportive. I'm supportive 15:28:09 ... I'll go ahead and land that PR tomorrow. If anyone has comments on the GH issue, please do so 15:28:23 Mounir: I'm excited to see this. Want to initiate privacy review 15:28:59 ChrisC: I've added security and privacy considerations to Web Codecs spec. As we're gearing up to ship during the summer, I'd encourage all the user agents to raise concerns and give feedback 15:30:12 q+ 15:30:14 cpn: Question about Media Capabilities and WAVE project, any further progress? 15:30:23 q 15:30:26 q- 15:31:11 q+ 15:31:13 ChrisC: We last spoke in December, some questions about whether the issue raised about CMAF was really an issue. 15:31:23 cpn: So it's with them to follow up 15:31:34 ChrisC: I'm ready to discuss further on that topic 15:32:05 Jer: The WAVE project is defining a docuemnt the CMAF specs to Media Capabilities. MC offers queries that CMAF can't meet in the format itself 15:32:55 ... There's a bitrate field they can't fill out yet. There's some work they'll need to do, and if they find issues that can't be resolved in the mapping document, they can bring to the Media WG 15:33:28 q? 15:33:29 q- 15:33:51 Mounir: Anything else? 15:34:06 [adjourned] 15:34:22 rrsagent, draft minutes 15:34:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/02/09-mediawg-minutes.html cpn 15:34:26 rrsagent, make log public 16:33:35 RRSAgent, bye 16:33:35 I see no action items