IRC log of webtv on 2012-01-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:01:16 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webtv
16:01:16 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:01:19 [R_Berkoff]
R_Berkoff has joined #webtv
16:01:29 [kaz]
zakim, call kazuyuki-617
16:01:39 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #webtv
16:01:44 [kaz]
zakim, call kazuyuki-617
16:02:03 [kaz]
zakim, call kazuyuki-617
16:02:13 [Zakim]
sorry, kaz, I don't know what conference this is
16:02:16 [kaz]
zakim, this will be webtv
16:02:31 [Zakim]
sorry, kaz, I don't know what conference this is
16:02:37 [kaz]
zakim, call kazuyuki-617
16:02:39 [glenn]
zakim, this is webtv
16:02:43 [Zakim]
ok, kaz, I see UW_WebTVIG()11:00AM already started
16:02:54 [Clarke]
zakim, who is on the phone
16:02:55 [kaz]
zakim, who is here?
16:03:07 [Zakim]
ok, kaz; the call is being made
16:03:09 [Zakim]
16:03:15 [Zakim]
glenn, this was already UW_WebTVIG()11:00AM
16:03:17 [Zakim]
ok, glenn; that matches UW_WebTVIG()11:00AM
16:03:31 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', Clarke
16:03:31 [Mike5]
Zakim, call Mike
16:03:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.408.475.aaaa, +1.765.413.aabb (muted), +1.720.934.aacc, GlennAdams, Kazuyuki
16:03:45 [Zakim]
16:03:52 [kaz]
present: john, clarke, kaz
16:03:58 [Clarke]
zakim, 934.aacc is me
16:04:03 [kaz]
present+ duncan
16:04:09 [kaz]
present+ russel
16:04:09 [Zakim]
ok, Mike5; the call is being made
16:04:11 [Zakim]
16:04:15 [Zakim]
On IRC I see R_Berkoff, RRSAgent, JanL, glenn, duncanr, Clarke, Mike5, kaz, masao, trackbot
16:04:17 [kaz]
zakim, who is here?
16:04:25 [kaz]
present+ mike
16:04:27 [Zakim]
16:04:35 [Zakim]
sorry, Clarke, I do not recognize a party named '934.aacc'
16:04:43 [Zakim]
16:04:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.408.475.aaaa, +1.765.413.aabb, +1.720.934.aacc, GlennAdams, Kazuyuki, [Microsoft], Mike, Duncan, Franck?
16:05:00 [kaz]
present+ bob
16:05:00 [Zakim]
16:05:02 [Zakim]
16:05:02 [kaz]
present+ jan
16:05:14 [Johnsim]
Johnsim has joined #webtv
16:05:17 [Zakim]
On IRC I see R_Berkoff, RRSAgent, JanL, glenn, duncanr, Clarke, Mike5, kaz, masao, trackbot
16:06:03 [Zakim]
+ +1.206.664.aadd
16:06:14 [kaz]
zakim, aadd is jason
16:06:17 [kaz]
present+ jason
16:06:25 [Zakim]
+jason; got it
16:06:31 [kaz]
rrsagent, make log public
16:06:39 [kaz]
rrsagent,, draft minutes
16:06:39 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand ', draft minutes', kaz. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:06:43 [franck]
franck has joined #webtv
16:06:44 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:06:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
16:06:48 [jasonlewis]
jasonlewis has joined #webtv
16:06:53 [kaz]
present+ franck
16:07:23 [Zakim]
+ +358.405.81aaee
16:07:42 [Juhani]
Juhani has joined #webtv
16:07:47 [Zakim]
16:07:52 [kaz]
kaz has joined #webtv
16:07:59 [Johnsim]
16:08:07 [Johnsim]
Las Vegas
16:08:11 [Yamini]
Yamini has joined #webtv
16:08:59 [Johnsim]
Clarke: deadline Jan 14TH need to be escalated in order not to be dropped... any clarification on that?
16:09:35 [Clarke]
16:09:47 [glenn]
i don't believe it means they will be dropped if not escalated; rather, they (bugs) are subject to resolution by the editor
16:09:55 [Clarke]
JanL: add discussion on adaptive streaming emails
16:10:44 [Johnsim]
Kaz: announcement from paul cotton yesterday - talk with Mike Smith - how to deal with comments
16:10:51 [Johnsim]
Mike will explained details on this call
16:11:18 [kaz]
present+ juhani
16:11:38 [Johnsim]
Mike5: Paste in a URL
16:11:41 [Mike5]
16:11:55 [BobLund]
BobLund has joined #webtv
16:11:56 [Mike5]
16:11:57 [Johnsim]
Mike5: current decision policy in the working group
16:12:29 [Johnsim]
Mike5: two points - the flowchart - step raise bug, editors response, this is how it was envisioned
16:12:46 [kaz]
i/Clarke: deadline/topic: Discuss escalation of bugs to tracker issues/
16:12:54 [Johnsim]
mike5: after response - review response and then decide if you are satisfied or not - if satisfied, close the bug - if not, then "escalate"
16:12:55 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:12:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
16:13:05 [kaz]
Meeting: MPTF call
16:13:13 [mav]
mav has joined #webtv
16:13:18 [kaz]
Chair: Clarke
16:13:31 [kaz]
i/Clarke: deadline/scribe: johnsim/
16:13:36 [Johnsim]
Mike5: right to take that issue to next level of appeal - in this case, you have different people who are responsible for resolution at diff points in the process
16:13:37 [kaz]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:13:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
16:14:12 [Johnsim]
bugs in Mozilla, editor of the spec is responsible, --- if you disagree - chairs are the "court of appeals"
16:14:29 [glenn]
16:14:30 [Johnsim]
Mike5: meant to kickin when you have reached a point of disagreement that is otherwise unresolvable
16:14:40 [Johnsim]
16:15:34 [Johnsim]
Mike5: as part of the timeline that the chair announced, they said if editor had not resolved by 31st, you have an option of escalating them automatically regardless of whether you had received a resolution
16:16:04 [Johnsim]
Mike5: it is an option, not a requirement. and another thing - no bug is ever dropped - will be resolved regardless
16:16:11 [kaz]
present+ mav
16:16:59 [Johnsim]
Mike5: remains in the same state that it is in now - waiting for further review by editor - or waiting for the editor to ask questions of bug commenter
16:17:07 [kaz]
zakim, aaee is Juhani_Huttunen
16:17:07 [Zakim]
+Juhani_Huttunen; got it
16:18:01 [Johnsim]
mike5: in my assessment, none have reached an point of impass with hixie
16:18:22 [kaz]
present+ Yamini
16:18:26 [Zakim]
16:18:34 [kaz]
present+ Narm
16:19:00 [narm]
narm has joined #webtv
16:19:01 [Johnsim]
Mike5: Hixie - can be three weeks before he can get around to commenting - in some things we have offloaded - but he is working on a lot of stuff
16:19:23 [Johnsim]
Mike5: do not think it is the case that he has ignored bugs - proceeding naturally or normally -
16:19:46 [Johnsim]
Mike5: risk of escalating bugs - if you take a bug and ask it into a working group issue, you are asking Hixie to stop working on those bugs
16:20:10 [Johnsim]
Mike5: suggest that is not the best thing to happen at this particular point in time
16:21:00 [Johnsim]
Mike5: another thing to keep in mind, what we are trying to do is not necessarily get stuff into the spec, it is to get stuff implemented in browsers -
16:21:33 [Johnsim]
Mike5: get browser mfg working on the use cases and some indication that they are not completely opposed to implementing a particular proposed feature
16:21:57 [Johnsim]
Mike5: escalating means additional 2 months process - to getting resolved
16:22:51 [Johnsim]
Mike5: numerous steps 2-3-4 weeks with time to review - and at a minimum that is 2 months of work from escalating to when you have a chance of getting a decision from the working group
16:22:58 [glenn]
escalating (making a bug a wg issue) is best done only after editor has resolved the bug in a manner not acceptable by the submitter; note that a closed bug may be reopened, so one may go through multiple rounds with the editor before choosing to escalate to issue;
16:23:16 [Johnsim]
clarke: sonds like you are suggesting not escalating - but consequences - this has been characterized as a deadline
16:23:49 [mav]
16:24:07 [Johnsim]
Mike5: not suggesting what you do... you do still have - if you decide to - to escalate - if you think that will help resolve sooner rather than later
16:24:39 [Johnsim]
BobLund: question - any bug there is still discussion with editor - bug is still considered open - it will stay and be worked on
16:24:44 [Johnsim]
Mike5: absolutely
16:24:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.867.aaff
16:25:01 [Johnsim]
Mike5: using bugzilla as last call counter
16:25:29 [Johnsim]
Mike5: no comment every submitted in bug tracker ever gets dropped on the floor
16:26:14 [kaz]
zakim, aaff is Mark_Watson
16:26:14 [Zakim]
+Mark_Watson; got it
16:26:14 [glenn]
Mike5: all registered bugs (in bugzilla) will eventually be resolved
16:26:26 [kaz]
present+ markW
16:26:32 [Johnsim]
Mike5: value proposition for escalation, working group - must fix during next last call round - cannot go to CR without these bugs being resolved
16:26:37 [kaz]
16:26:37 [Mike5]
16:26:43 [kaz]
ack mav
16:27:08 [Johnsim]
Mark Vickers: good advise, personally pleased with feedback and handling, don't want to short circuit
16:27:25 [Johnsim]
January 14th date - make sure we do the things we are supposed to do
16:28:12 [Johnsim]
Clarke: objective of this group is to get the bugs addressed, and not escalating will perhaps get this done more efficiently
16:28:50 [Johnsim]
Clarke: we should look at each bug, but for those awaiting response from editor, we should let them follow their natural process and not escalate
16:29:13 [Mike5]
q+ to say thanks for having me on and gotta drop off for another call and please contact me by e-mail if you have other specific questions
16:29:18 [Johnsim]
Clarke: hearing nothing, that is the recomendation - suggest you each look at the bugs and see if that is the case
16:29:39 [kaz]
ack M
16:29:39 [Zakim]
Mike, you wanted to say thanks for having me on and gotta drop off for another call and please contact me by e-mail if you have other specific questions
16:29:48 [Mike5]
16:30:02 [Johnsim]
Mike5: contact me by email if you have additional questions
16:30:04 [Zakim]
16:30:09 [Zakim]
16:30:23 [Johnsim]
Clarke: next agenda - updated charter statement
16:30:59 [kaz]
16:31:10 [Johnsim]
Any comments or wait until next week when we have a statement to discuss
16:31:19 [Zakim]
16:31:38 [kaz]
16:31:58 [JanL]
16:32:21 [Johnsim]
JanL: post link on draft we are working on - touch on - see if there is a conclusion
16:32:25 [kaz]
i/http/topic: adaptive streaming/
16:33:04 [mark]
mark has joined #webtv
16:33:36 [Mike5]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:33:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Mike5
16:33:52 [Johnsim]
JanL: first to touch on, feedback from Jason (Disney), question usability from a - not talking - SD HD, not using the minimum bandwidth to control the profile
16:34:09 [mav]
mav has joined #webtv
16:34:34 [Johnsim]
Jason: maximum more important than minimum, quality tied to minimum
16:34:52 [Johnsim]
JanL: go into the quality aspect, the use cases, CP1 sets a specific target
16:34:57 [Johnsim]
16:35:14 [Johnsim]
CT2, we are not talking about bandwidth, we are talking about reprsentation
16:35:23 [kaz]
16:35:46 [Johnsim]
JanL: higher lower quality should be addressing CT2
16:36:39 [Clarke]
16:36:54 [kaz]
ack Clarke
16:37:05 [Johnsim]
Clarke: i think - you point Jan - in case of max bandwidth, obvious the appropriate response is to send less data
16:37:28 [Johnsim]
Clarke: in case of minimum, we need to be more specific in suggested response
16:37:42 [Johnsim]
Clarke: what is the expected action?
16:38:19 [Johnsim]
JanL: I am not clear - and touches on another area - diff application - maximum and minimum i expect my application to use - which is another issue
16:39:03 [Johnsim]
BobLund: so in response, Clarke, it is adaptive bitrate, it is the user agent decision, so the answer is you exceed the maximum, signal to the user agent to only select from a lower bitrate
16:39:11 [Johnsim]
Even if resources sugest higher
16:39:39 [kaz]
16:39:44 [Johnsim]
if we specify a min, resource has no recourse except to treat as a network error - max makes sense to me, min not so much
16:39:53 [Johnsim]
Mark Watson: happy for minimum to be removed
16:39:58 [kaz]
s/Even if/... Even if/
16:40:09 [kaz]
s/if we specify/... if we specify/
16:40:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
16:41:03 [kaz]
s/Mark Watson:/Mark_Watson:/
16:41:14 [Johnsim]
JanL: haven't identified who in the task force "i need it, and for this purpose" --- no one has pointed to a "i need it for this purpose"
16:41:34 [Johnsim]
Clarke: give people a week, and if no one responses by then, we drop it
16:41:43 [Johnsim]
Clarke: do this from the minutes
16:42:13 [Johnsim]
JanL: CT1 requirement states overall bandwidth usage - what does that mean? adaptive only or whole browser?
16:42:32 [Johnsim]
JanL: my impression we were speaking only of adaptive streaming, so suggest reword to clarify
16:42:52 [Johnsim]
JanL: architecture for overall bandwidth managemetn is much more complex
16:43:07 [kaz]
16:43:12 [Johnsim]
Jason: i agree, and focus on version 1, a "hint" of what the maximum should be
16:43:39 [Johnsim]
JanL: TCP/IP socket, clear means of managing the socket
16:44:02 [Johnsim]
Jason: is intent to limit the bandwidth to that cap, or suggest which bandwidth it should be picking
16:44:04 [Johnsim]
16:44:17 [kaz]
16:44:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
16:44:52 [kaz]
16:44:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
16:45:07 [Johnsim]
Jason: does it need to be more explicit - to describe - to be clear it is either the set of bitrates or the bandwidth of the tcp connection?
16:45:35 [Johnsim]
Clarke: more the level, a hint to the user agent on the bandwidth - between you and Jan propose some language
16:45:57 [Johnsim]
JanL: suggestion limit adaptive bitrate streaming bandwidth
16:46:16 [Johnsim]
Jason: rephrase in the control parameters -
16:46:24 [Johnsim]
JanL: you do this?
16:46:27 [Johnsim]
Jason: okay
16:47:02 [Johnsim]
JanL: one more
16:47:25 [Johnsim]
JanL: puzzled with CT2 - want a means of selecting only HD level, but don't see control parameters fo rthat use case
16:47:57 [kaz]
s/fo rthat/for that/
16:48:04 [Johnsim]
JanL: remove CT2 or add controls - old discussion - but to have this use case, we need to specify the control parameter
16:48:12 [Johnsim]
Clarke: touches on your first point
16:48:53 [Johnsim]
Clarke: 1) parameter that allows us to specify that and then the response wouldbe what bob suggested, if you can meet this, return error message "i can't maintain level you required"
16:49:44 [Johnsim]
JanL: HD level, HLS, MPEG DASH, there is a reprsentation for HD, not bandwidth, it is a representation, convey to UA an HD level quality
16:50:06 [Johnsim]
Clarke: do we believe in the requirements, CT2 - people support,and then how do we convey that requirement
16:50:19 [Johnsim]
JanL: I vote leave it (CT2) and we address it
16:50:41 [Johnsim]
Jason: HD Level is combination of bitrate and resolution -
16:51:17 [Johnsim]
Jason: trying to capture HD as a bandwidth thing does not directly correlate - bitrate quality and resolution quality give you the "HD Feel"
16:51:33 [kaz]
s/support,and/support, and/
16:52:23 [Johnsim]
JanL: HD for me is a representation, not a matrix of bandwidth - i understand different resolution, different factors, but a means of conveying to the UA I want an HD representation
16:53:34 [Johnsim]
JanL: we have resprseentation changes call back - we have errors with manifest not being able to parse - all i am missing is how the represenation is being selected
16:53:55 [kaz]
16:54:41 [kaz]
16:54:47 [Johnsim]
JanL: Hugh, you are questioning CT2
16:55:14 [Johnsim]
Hugh: that kind of control to the web page, language independent of the manifest
16:55:43 [Johnsim]
or if under the covers by the UA, giving the user control, something the UA should be responsible for - two approaches to handle CT2 in model 1
16:55:52 [Johnsim]
JanL: what is the second model,
16:56:06 [Johnsim]
Hugh: language for constraint to be expressed independent of manifest
16:56:35 [Johnsim]
Hugh (?): user agent that knows what is available, so should give the user what is available -
16:57:14 [Johnsim]
janl: list from UA representations in their own language, and then i can set - maximum quality using this representation
16:57:32 [Johnsim]
Hugh: manifest independent language for quality levels
16:57:57 [Johnsim]
Hugh: UA exposes in a non-browser/adaptive streaming specific manner
16:58:28 [Johnsim]
s/Hugh/Mark Watson/
16:58:37 [kaz]
16:58:38 [Clarke]
16:58:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
16:59:52 [Johnsim]
Mark: haven't investigating media queries - different choices in source elements
17:00:21 [JanL]
is this the media querias?
17:00:25 [JanL]
17:00:51 [kaz]
s/Mark Watson:/Mark_Watson:/
17:00:57 [Johnsim]
Bob Lund: expressing preferences - not media queries - constraints to the UA - independent of each other - i think
17:01:20 [Johnsim]
Clarke: we can continue this on the reflector and have it as an item for the agenda next week
17:01:26 [Zakim]
17:01:35 [Johnsim]
JanL: buffer size question - but defer to thenext phone conference
17:01:35 [glenn]
glenn has left #webtv
17:01:37 [Zakim]
17:01:44 [Zakim]
17:01:48 [Zakim]
17:01:49 [Zakim]
17:01:49 [Zakim]
17:01:50 [Zakim]
17:01:51 [Zakim]
17:01:52 [Mike5]
Mike5 has left #webtv
17:01:53 [Zakim]
- +1.765.413.aabb
17:01:55 [Zakim]
- +1.720.934.aacc
17:01:56 [Zakim]
- +1.408.475.aaaa
17:01:57 [Zakim]
17:01:57 [Zakim]
17:01:59 [duncanr]
duncanr has left #webtv
17:01:59 [Zakim]
17:02:08 [Clarke]
Thanks for scribing, John
17:02:35 [kaz]
s/Bob Lund:/Bob_Lund:/
17:02:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
17:03:48 [Zakim]
17:03:49 [Zakim]
UW_WebTVIG()11:00AM has ended
17:03:51 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.408.475.aaaa, +1.765.413.aabb, +1.720.934.aacc, GlennAdams, Kazuyuki, [Microsoft], Mike, Duncan, Franck?, Jan_Lindquist, +1.206.664.aadd, jason, +358.405.81aaee,
17:03:54 [Zakim]
... Mark_Vickers, Juhani_Huttunen, Narm_Gadiraju, +1.415.867.aaff, Mark_Watson, narm
17:12:52 [kaz]
Present: Russell_Berkoff, Clarke_Stevens, Bob_Lund, Glenn_Adams, Kaz_Ashimura, John_simmons, Mike_Smith, Duncan_Rowden, Franck_Denoual, Jan_Lindquist, Yamini_Nimmagadda, Jason_Lewis, Juhani_Huttunen, Mark_Vickers, Narm_Gadiraju, Mark_Watson
17:12:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate kaz
17:55:48 [mav]
mav has joined #webtv
18:20:40 [mav]
mav has joined #webtv
19:33:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #webtv