Comments on Jan's proposal

Clarke: let's get started, agenda. First item is look at Jan's comments

Jan: there is one more change; split one error..is that ok?

Clark: Discuss Separating Auth errors from other

Mark: finishing off proposal, work on messaging and will post on wiki in next couple days

OIPF input

<kaz> Jan's write-up

Clarke: next item is from Jan on OIPF

Jan: There are 3 documents that are referenced...
... 1 - document about architecture
... they use Marlin ...

Clarke: I've put up pages on Adaptive bitrate

<ph> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/ADR_Error_Codes

<ph> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Content_Protection_Error_Codes

mav: What is the IP around using OIPF?
... What is the IP around using OIPF?

Jan: there is precedence with a license

Clarke: what is procedure/process for referencing outside documents?

Philipp: We should use the document?

mav: no, we should use ideas and incorporate them...
... no, we should use ideas and incorporate them...

ph: We need to be sure we're interested enough to use doc/ideas

Clarke: some preliminary investigation would be good

<kaz> W3C Patent Policy

glenn: why did we wish to incorporate ideas, instead of reference sections in OIPF?

<kaz> ACTION: hoschka to look at IP issues with referencing OIPF documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-webtv-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-83 - Look at IP issues with referencing OIPF documents [on Philipp Hoschka - due 2011-12-15].

jan: There is a precedence with OMA

juhani: section on patent policy that are referenced

kaz: we should clarify what we want to refer to/include

Clark: Juhani work with Jan to get guidance and clarify what will be included

<Juhani> "Juhani work with Jan to get guidance and clarify what will be included" - I think this is someone else than Juhani this action was appointed to ...

 

<glenn> glenn: notes that section 8.2 of PP allows exclusion of claims based on "mere incorporation by reference"

 

<kaz> ACTION: hoschka to work with Jan to get guidance and clarify what will be included [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-webtv-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-84 - Work with Jan to get guidance and clarify what will be included [on Philipp Hoschka - due 2011-12-15].

Adaptive delivery

Clarke: next agenda item, WHATWG...around adaptive bitrate proposal

<Clarke> Adaptive delivery page: http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/ADR_Error_Codes

Clarke: also created page to summarize this

Duncan: don't read too much into the source

<ph> page should probably link to source in whatwg

Clarke: organized into sections around params, error codes, feedback, new apis

Duncan: would be useful to have 'bytesReceived' under feedback
... bytes received is more explicit

Clarke: lets look at items.. parameter, maxLevel, it is the bitrate level

Duncan: This proposal is moving towards remote control approach that JS can influence bitrate selection

MarkW: need lots of data and feedback in JS to enable heuristics to make good decisions for bitrate selection

Duncan: added seconds on next segment to help logic

<ph> link to original whatwg page?

MarkW: it's unclear that we have enough information and details in proposal

Clarke: we should discuss the 3 architectures/modes

MarkW: concern over mode three about sending video data through JS

<ph> whatwg source seems to be http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Adaptive_Streaming

MarkW: the google approach does use AJAX to retrieve data

Bob: there is same issue that useragent needs to expose metrics regardless

MarkW: approach 3 is easier, but approach 2 the useragent is aware of bitrates and manifests

mav: video append would be useful for smooth playlists or inserting ads

<ph> +1 on mav

<mark> +q

kaz: we should include the original resource of WHATWG working group as Philipp pointed out, shouldn't we?

<kaz> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Adaptive_Streaming

<duncanr> and http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Video_Metrics

jason: is the 'currentSegmentDownload' a best guess of seconds based percentage? or real seconds?

Duncan: best guess based on average bitrate

Schedule

Clarke: deadline of Dec 15 for HTML5
... we should work offline to get our proposal tight and use wikipage to send recommendations

MarkW: unlikely that timeframe is possible
... benefit of approach 3 is enable experimentation....
... only add details to approach 1 to just report bitrate selected

Clarke: we could get everything into html5, or try to influence implementations that drive back to standards

Duncan: setting the level valuable, and querying the available levels

Kilroy: there need to be ability to set max bitrate ceiling, but beyond that requires more event feedback to enable heuristics
... at early state of adaptive streaming, enabling apporach 3 (all in JS) gives advantages

MarkW: unlikely HTML5 group may accept

<ph> proposed resolution: go for option 1

<mav> Kilroy, do you think option 3, as you described, can be proposed by 12/15?

MarkW: timing of socializing this is issue

Clarke: let's continue the discussion using the mailing list and the wiki by Tuesday

<mav> What exactly has to be complete by 12/15? Does the proposal need to be finalized? Socialized?

<kaz> mav and Clarke, maybe we should check with Paul Cotton as well

[ adjourned ]