<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> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Agenda_Telco_8th_September_2011

Update on issues from last week

clarke: bob, any update?

Merging of issue-18 and issue-39 (Bob and Jan)

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 issue-18
... 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

Clarify wording on issue 40 (concern with word "enforce") (Russell)

russell: would like one more week

clarke: ok

Clarify explanations on DRM requirements, also consider more specific DECE requirements (Bob)

(Bob is disconnected...)

clarke: we have issue-40 and issue-41
... and would like to see the difference

bob: contacted DECE
... we'll have discussion next week
... Jim Taylor

<Clarke> Taylor

bob: security specification

<Clarke> Works for DECE

russell: various ways for security
... Amazon, Netflix
... negotiation for separate systems
... so implementation specific

bob: that's one possible mechanism
... 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

<Clarke> thanks

juhani: (explains the mechanism; but his voice is breaking...)
... various potential protection mechanisms

clarke: ok

bob: would restate our purpose is common mechanism
... 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 protocols
... which one is supported, and priority, etc.

Continuing issue acceptance review (beginning with issue 42)

issue-42?

<trackbot> ISSUE-42 -- Content delivery to personal computers -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/42

<Clarke> issue-42 http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/MPTF_Discussions/Delivery_to_pc

clarke: (explains the issue)
... 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 tablet
... 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 devices
... you don't want to drop targets, do you
... overlapped list

dave: ok

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 level
... 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

issue-43?

<trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- Content delivery to retail consumer electronics devices -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/43

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

+1

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

np

<Clarke> -Clarke

Clarke, Bob will try to put issue-42 and issue-43 together. right?

there was much scratch, and I couldn't here him