See also: IRC log
<francois> [Regrets for this call. I'm on a call for the WebRTC working group. I'll monitor IRC]
<igarashi> zakim ??p49 is igarashi
clarke: bob, any update?
jan: we can continue the discussion offline on the reflector
bob: my issue-39's point was
types of metadata
... while 18 was more generic
... I'll post comments on the reflector
jan: we have bug reports
... would like to talk about the bug
kaz: which bug?
jan: 389 is related to
... HTML5 bug
clarke: good suggestion
... requirements comes from these issues are good
kaz: will they create a new issue based on the discussion?
jan: the conclusion depends on the discussion
bob: discussion first
jan: can I reopen HTML5 bugs which has been already closed?
kaz: you should be able to send a message to the public list
clarke: one of the bugs is closed but the other 3 are still open
<Clarke> The other 3 are still open
clarke: should we ask HTML WG to reopen 13333?
<scribe> ACTION: jan to send a message to HTML WG public list and talk with the group about how to deal with the closed bugs, e.g., 13333 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-75 - Send a message to HTML WG public list and talk with the group about how to deal with the closed bugs, e.g., 13333 [on Jan Lindquist - due 2011-09-15].
jan: just to clarify, how to refer closed bug
russell: would like one more week
(Bob is disconnected...)
clarke: we have issue-40 and
... and would like to see the difference
bob: contacted DECE
... we'll have discussion next week
... Jim Taylor
bob: security specification
<Clarke> Works for DECE
russell: various ways for
... Amazon, Netflix
... negotiation for separate systems
... so implementation specific
bob: that's one possible
... for download
... whatever content protection
... another possibility is direct streaming
... in that case DECE common encryption
... MPEG DASH is one example
clarke: can you define "LASP" ?
<Clarke> or "LASP" ?
<davidmays> yes it's LASP
<davidmays> LASP = Locker Access Streaming Provider
juhani: (explains the mechanism;
but his voice is breaking...)
... various potential protection mechanisms
bob: would restate our purpose is
... sharing common encryption
clarke: bob will meet DECE and clarify their requirements
bob: if there is a plan on
browser-based technology by DECE, will let the TF know
... no intention of specific DRM mechanism, but common encryption mechanism
... try to put ideas on wiki
... have specific examples
... within next couple of days
... will generate a wiki page first
<scribe> ACTION: lund to generate a wiki page on examples of common encryption mechanism [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/08-webtv-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-76 - Generate a wiki page on examples of common encryption mechanism [on Bob Lund - due 2011-09-15].
bob: something like CODECs, content providers can choose appropriate mechanism
clarke: number of possible
... which one is supported, and priority, etc.
<trackbot> ISSUE-42 -- Content delivery to personal computers -- raised
<Clarke> issue-42 http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Delivery_to_pc
clarke: (explains the
... Personal computers are a desirable target for service providers to deliver content.
... can we accept this?
dave: are we thinking of tablet, etc.?
bob: depends on particular
... vendor's specific tablet
... some of them are PC-like ones
... but some of them are retail devices
dave: mobile devices like mobile phones
bob: fine with rewording
... what is the characteristics of "personal computers" ?
... software-based solution
clarke: personal computer and CE
... you don't want to drop targets, do you
... overlapped list
juhani: what about requirements for issue-43?
clarke: 42 description is fine, but need rewording "personal computers"
russell: W3C makes implementation-based distinction
bob: no suggestion of W3C
... how you might implement content security on a personal computer
... software environment is quite open
... while no support with hardware level
... platform distinction may drive different consideration
... keep handling different platforms separately
... other distinction is also possible
... different economic consideration
... there are distinctions we need discussion
... what we want to understand is different category of devices have different compliance rules
... compliance of robustness
russell: we have to write recommendations which are fairly neutral
clarke: some of the key
difference may effect our requirements
... "personal computing device" and "consumer device"
juhani: mobile phones and smart phones belong to issue-43 (CE devices), don't they?
bob: accessibility is also the key
clarke: anybody oppose to accept issue-42 as a requirement?
russell: need rewording
... between hardware-oriented devices and the others
... a bit confused what issue-42 want to say
bob: clarification is issue-42 is
identifying more open and accessible devices
... while issue-43 is identifying more close devices
... would like add clarification
<Clarke> For reference, here is issue 43: http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Delivery_to_ce
<trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- Content delivery to retail consumer electronics devices -- raised
russell: source code is available for webkit
clarke: would suggest we mention
the spectrum of devices
... one end of the spectrum is pc and another end is ce
bob: makes sense
clarke: russell, maybe you could take discussion with Bob offline, couldn't you?
dave: should mention characteristics as well
russell: f2f plan?
clarke: f2f meeting on 21st-22nd right after the workshop on 19th-20th
<Clarke> Thanks, Kaz
Clarke, Bob will try to put issue-42 and issue-43 together. right?
there was much scratch, and I couldn't here him