IRC log of mediafrag on 2009-09-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:59:50 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #mediafrag
08:59:50 [RRSAgent]
logging to
08:59:52 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
08:59:52 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #mediafrag
08:59:54 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be IA_MFWG
08:59:54 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see IA_MFWG()5:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
08:59:55 [trackbot]
Meeting: Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
08:59:55 [trackbot]
Date: 23 September 2009
09:00:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate raphael
09:00:31 [jackjansen]
zakim, code?
09:00:31 [Zakim]
the conference code is 3724 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), jackjansen
09:00:34 [Zakim]
IA_MFWG()5:00AM has now started
09:00:38 [Zakim]
09:00:45 [raphael]
09:00:51 [raphael]
Chair: Erik, Raphael
09:01:12 [raphael]
Present: Conrad, Jack, Michael, Silvia, Raphael, Thierry, Yves
09:01:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate raphael
09:01:55 [Zakim]
09:02:04 [Zakim]
09:02:16 [Zakim]
09:02:30 [raphael]
Scribe: jackjansen
09:02:35 [raphael]
Scrinenick: jackjansen
09:02:46 [conrad]
Zakim, Simon_Pieters is me
09:02:46 [Zakim]
+conrad; got it
09:04:16 [Zakim]
09:04:23 [raphael]
scribenick: jackjansen
09:04:25 [Zakim]
09:04:27 [erik]
erik has joined #mediafrag
09:04:36 [raphael]
Present+ Erik
09:05:01 [jackjansen]
TOPIC: 1 admin
09:05:19 [conrad]
Zakim, mute me
09:05:19 [Zakim]
conrad should now be muted
09:05:33 [raphael]
Minutes telecon:
09:05:44 [raphael]
Minutes F2F: and
09:05:47 [mhausenblas]
09:05:51 [raphael]
09:05:58 [Zakim]
09:06:13 [jackjansen]
Raphael: minutes approved
09:06:36 [silvia]
09:06:41 [conrad]
Zakim, unmute me
09:06:41 [Zakim]
conrad should no longer be muted
09:07:09 [jackjansen]
Thierry: action-111 is ongoing
09:07:48 [jackjansen]
TOPIC: 2 UC & requirements
09:08:00 [conrad]
Zakim, mute me
09:08:00 [Zakim]
conrad should now be muted
09:08:14 [jackjansen]
Raphael: 105 and 106 are ongoing, will try to do this afternoon
09:08:31 [raphael]
09:08:31 [trackbot]
ACTION-95 -- Michael Hausenblas to review ALL UC with a mobile hat on and check whether these sufficiently cover the mobile usage -- due 2009-09-02 -- OPEN
09:08:31 [trackbot]
09:09:10 [jackjansen]
Michael: on 95 there seem to be no issues with mobile
09:09:34 [jackjansen]
RESOLVED: 95, no special issues for mobile
09:10:51 [raphael]
Side Conditions are in 2 documents:
09:10:58 [raphael]
which document should it be?
09:11:05 [raphael]
close ACTION-95
09:11:05 [trackbot]
ACTION-95 Review ALL UC with a mobile hat on and check whether these sufficiently cover the mobile usage closed
09:11:16 [raphael]
Jack: I agree it should be in one document, no preference
09:12:07 [jackjansen]
Raphael: tends to think its requirement doc
09:12:10 [mhausenblas]
09:12:43 [jackjansen]
ACTION: Raphael to move section to requirements doc only
09:12:43 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Raphael
09:12:54 [raphael]
Silvia: about your suggestion of removing the side conditions section in one of the two document
09:13:09 [jackjansen]
ACTION: troncy to move section to requirements doc only
09:13:09 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-113 - Move section to requirements doc only [on Raphaƫl Troncy - due 2009-09-30].
09:13:15 [raphael]
... we will remove it from the spec and keep it in the requirements doc
09:13:33 [silvia]
09:13:54 [jackjansen]
TOPIC: 3 specification
09:14:11 [raphael]
09:14:11 [trackbot]
ACTION-109 -- Erik Mannens to and Davy to write a paragraph in the documents to explain why we don't include this feature in the spec (rationale) based on the group analysis (impact both req and spec documents) -- due 2009-09-24 -- OPEN
09:14:11 [trackbot]
09:14:31 [raphael]
Yes, Silvia, this is Erik action we are talking about
09:14:31 [jackjansen]
Erik: 109 will be done this week
09:14:40 [raphael]
09:14:40 [trackbot]
ACTION-110 -- Silvia Pfeiffer to silvia to Draft a summary starting from her blog post and the 17/09/2009 IRC minutes in the document (role of ? and #) -- due 2009-09-24 -- OPEN
09:14:40 [trackbot]
09:14:49 [silvia]
110 will be done this week
09:14:50 [raphael]
... what's the status of this action?
09:14:57 [silvia]
not done yet
09:15:05 [jackjansen]
Silvia: 110 also this week
09:15:22 [jackjansen]
Raphael: let's talk about range syntax
09:15:50 [raphael]
09:16:11 [silvia]
I just a few minutes ago sent an update on that discussion
09:16:25 [silvia]
09:17:08 [silvia]
does anyone have the specification that Yves pointed out will update the RFC to satisfy the need for other range types?
09:18:32 [conrad]
if we are going to make a spec for time range units, i agree with silvia's proposal that both Range request header and Content-Range response header should use "time:npt" etc.
09:20:29 [conrad]
if we start re-using parsers then we need to have the same syntax constraints in both
09:20:53 [conrad]
eg. commas have a special meaning in headers
09:20:56 [conrad]
Zakim, unmute me
09:20:56 [Zakim]
conrad should no longer be muted
09:21:00 [jackjansen]
Jack: prefres to stay close to existing http syntax
09:21:58 [silvia]
we are not making any differences to existing http syntax
09:22:13 [jackjansen]
Conrad: also syntax in different http headers
09:22:19 [jackjansen]
Jack: agrees
09:22:23 [silvia]
the RFC has been reviewed:
09:22:35 [conrad]
Zakim, mute me
09:22:35 [Zakim]
conrad should now be muted
09:22:42 [silvia]
one change was "make name of header value production for "Range" consistent with other headers"
09:22:46 [jackjansen]
Raphael: proposed resolution: adapt proposal from Silvia, with both range and content-range
09:23:00 [jackjansen]
... using dimension:unit
09:23:02 [conrad]
Zakim, unmute me
09:23:02 [Zakim]
conrad should no longer be muted
09:23:15 [raphael]
Range: <dimension>[':' <unit>] '=' <start time> - <end time>
09:23:18 [jackjansen]
09:23:40 [jackjansen]
conrad: units not optional
09:23:43 [Yves]
+1 to no optional unit
09:23:55 [jackjansen]
09:23:56 [raphael]
Range: <dimension> ':' <unit> '=' <start time> - <end time>
09:24:13 [raphael]
same for Content6range
09:24:17 [silvia]
why no optional unit?
09:24:20 [conrad]
if any of the time are allowed to have frame offsets, the unit must be there
09:24:22 [raphael]
09:24:25 [jackjansen]
Raphael: revised proposal: units not optional, same for content-range
09:24:35 [conrad]
Zakim, mute me
09:24:35 [Zakim]
conrad should now be muted
09:24:45 [raphael]
+1 for this proposal
09:25:28 [raphael]
silvia, if the offset is at the frame precision, then unit is mandatory
09:25:37 [Yves]
silvia, because machines are nto humans
09:25:42 [Yves]
09:25:50 [jackjansen]
beep beep
09:26:03 [raphael]
Silvia, no objection ?
09:26:19 [silvia]
no, I am not too worried about optional/non-optional unit in Range
09:26:23 [silvia]
09:26:32 [silvia]
just curious about reasoning :)
09:26:40 [mhausenblas]
09:26:56 [jackjansen]
RESOLUTION: range and unit are non-optional in content-range and range headers
09:27:13 [silvia]
btw: the draft RFC update is here
09:27:39 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, make logs public
09:27:48 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:27:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mhausenblas
09:27:55 [jackjansen]
Raphael: next, should we use range for addressing tracks?
09:27:57 [conrad]
Zakim, unmute me
09:27:57 [Zakim]
conrad should no longer be muted
09:28:10 [raphael]
09:28:14 [mhausenblas]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
09:28:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mhausenblas
09:28:29 [conrad]
silvia: what is your response about use of range for track?
09:28:29 [jackjansen]
... Conrad wants new header, Silvia wants to reuse range
09:29:10 [jackjansen]
Yves: range header is mainly numeric
09:29:11 [silvia]
I wonder why we need a different header for that - let me read up on the email thread
09:29:22 [Zakim]
09:29:50 [jackjansen]
Yves: we will wait for raphael to return
09:31:24 [silvia]
so, Yves, do you agree about creating a new "Fragment:" header for tracks?
09:31:35 [conrad]
you can't take an interval of track names, or describe the instance-length for Content-Range
09:31:47 [jackjansen]
We will continue.
09:32:21 [silvia]
you could if the tracks were ordered
09:32:32 [silvia]
then the "instance-length" could be the number of tracks
09:32:33 [jackjansen]
Yves: if we have it in range, would we need resolver to map track names to byte ranges?
09:34:07 [jackjansen]
zakim, who is here?
09:34:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see mhausenblas, Jack_Jansen, conrad, tmichel, Yves, erik
09:34:09 [silvia]
we need such a resolver for time, too
09:34:10 [Zakim]
On IRC I see erik, Zakim, RRSAgent, tmichel, jackjansen, silvia, mhausenblas, conrad, trackbot, Yves
09:34:51 [conrad]
silvia: how do you request "t=20/20&track=audio" as a Range header, and how do you make the Content-Range response?
09:35:17 [jackjansen]
Yves: anyone has any response to my question?
09:35:20 [silvia]
multiple Range headers
09:35:25 [jackjansen]
Jack: no opinion
09:35:28 [silvia]
multiple Content-Range response headers
09:35:55 [Yves]
multiple content ranges are allowed
09:36:06 [jackjansen]
Yves: there is a similarity to what we said about crop
09:36:15 [Yves]
s/crop/aspect ratio/
09:36:26 [Yves]
is track as a #fragment really required?
09:36:35 [silvia]
can you explain the similarity that you see?
09:36:51 [Yves]
when a URI can be contructed with the relevantstarting/ending time
09:37:15 [jackjansen]
Should we table this until next week, silvia?
09:37:33 [Yves]
having named tracks instead of numeric value adds unnecessary complexity that requires a resolver, or a way to enumerate all the tracks in order
09:37:59 [silvia]
I do believe the track and also the id issues aren't fully understood yet
09:38:37 [silvia]
I also believe that it is good to focus on solving the "time" specification and protocol procedure now, but the others can wait a bit
09:38:52 [conrad]
Yves, that relates to ISSUE-4
09:39:11 [silvia]
we could indeed keep discussing this on the mailing list until we have the spec for "time" finalised
09:39:13 [jackjansen]
Yves: table, discuss on mail or next week.
09:39:56 [jackjansen]
TOPIC: 4, test cases
09:40:08 [mhausenblas]
09:40:59 [jackjansen]
Michael: on action 93, it doesn't seem to affect anything
09:41:38 [jackjansen]
RESOLVED: action-93, no test cases were affected
09:41:45 [mhausenblas]
close ACTION-93
09:41:45 [trackbot]
ACTION-93 Revisit the TC and see which are effected by the temporal-optional-comma-decision closed
09:42:19 [jackjansen]
Michael: remove test case 4, as aspect ratio is gone
09:42:29 [Yves]
09:42:48 [jackjansen]
ACTION on Michael to remove it
09:42:48 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
09:43:04 [jackjansen]
ACTION Michael to remove test case 4
09:43:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-114 - Remove test case 4 [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2009-09-30].
09:43:20 [mhausenblas]
state semantics
09:44:03 [jackjansen]
Michael: on to action 108
09:44:34 [mhausenblas]
Michael: empty means that it is defined but yields empty representation
09:44:40 [conrad]
Zakim, mute me
09:44:40 [Zakim]
conrad should now be muted
09:45:17 [jackjansen]
Michael: looking at naming of test cases, empty versus undefined
09:45:41 [jackjansen]
... is inconsistent, will clean it up
09:46:17 [jackjansen]
... empty means - yields empty representation
09:46:46 [jackjansen]
s/yields/defined, but yields
09:46:57 [mhausenblas]
two main categories: defined or undefined
09:47:14 [jackjansen]
... undefined means - no range given
09:47:37 [mhausenblas]
empty is defined, but yields empty representation
09:48:47 [jackjansen]
ACTION Michael to come up with categorization of test cases wrt empty, undefined, etc
09:48:47 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-115 - Come up with categorization of test cases wrt empty, undefined, etc [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2009-09-30].
09:49:20 [jackjansen]
TOPIC: 5 issues
09:49:39 [jackjansen]
Jack: no idea on issue 6
09:50:21 [jackjansen]
Yves: table it until Raphael is back
09:50:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Yves
09:50:32 [conrad]
Zakim, unmute me
09:50:32 [Zakim]
conrad should no longer be muted
09:50:33 [Zakim]
09:50:33 [jackjansen]
Tves: let's adjourn the meeting
09:50:34 [Zakim]
09:50:40 [Zakim]
09:50:41 [Zakim]
09:50:51 [Zakim]
09:51:07 [jackjansen]
ok, thanks!
09:51:20 [jackjansen]
Too many different syntaxes with rrsagent and zakim:-)
09:51:52 [Zakim]
09:51:53 [Zakim]
IA_MFWG()5:00AM has ended
09:51:55 [Zakim]
Attendees were raphael, mhausenblas, Jack_Jansen, conrad, tmichel, Yves, erik
09:51:56 [Yves]
yeah we should unify those ;)
09:52:10 [Yves]
trackbot, end telcon
09:52:11 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
09:52:11 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
09:52:12 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
09:52:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
09:52:13 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
09:52:13 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in :
09:52:13 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Raphael to move section to requirements doc only [1]
09:52:13 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
09:52:13 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: troncy to move section to requirements doc only [2]
09:52:13 [RRSAgent]
recorded in