15:47:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webrtc
15:47:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-webrtc-irc
15:47:18 <dom> RRSAgent, make log public
15:47:24 <dom> Zakim, this will be MDCAP
15:47:24 <Zakim> ok, dom; I see UW_MdCap()11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
15:47:35 <dom> Meeting: Media Capture Task Force teleconference
15:47:48 <dom> Chair: Harald, Stefan
15:47:52 <dom> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Feb/0004.html
15:48:08 <dom> dom has changed the topic to: Media Capture Task Force Teleconf Feb 9  - Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Feb/0004.html
15:49:05 <fluffy> Is it normal that the conf bridge tells me it is "restricted" at this point ?
15:50:18 <hta> hta has joined #webrtc
15:53:58 <dom> fluffy, that sounds weird — are you using the right code?
15:54:00 <dom> Zakim, code?
15:54:00 <Zakim> the conference code is 63227 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), dom
15:54:57 <Zakim> UW_MdCap()11:00AM has now started
15:55:04 <Zakim> + +1.403.244.aaaa
15:56:03 <fluffy> Pretty sure I had the right code - tried it twice. But I just tried again and it worked so perhaps I had wrong code or it needed to be started or something.
15:56:43 <dom> so, I gather you are aaaa
15:56:45 <Zakim> + +46.7.34.27.aabb
15:56:49 <dom> Zakim, aaaa is fluffy
15:56:49 <Zakim> +fluffy; got it
15:56:57 <hta> zakim, aabb is hta
15:56:57 <Zakim> +hta; got it
15:57:43 <stefanh> stefanh has joined #webrtc
15:58:20 <Zakim> +Josh_Soref
15:59:48 <Zakim> +[Voxeo]
16:00:00 <burn> burn has joined #webrtc
16:00:26 <burn> zakim, who's on the phone?
16:00:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see fluffy, hta, Josh_Soref, [Voxeo]
16:00:43 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref has joined #webrtc
16:00:44 <darobin> darobin has joined #webrtc
16:00:45 <Zakim> +??P58
16:00:45 <burn> zakim, [Voxeo] is Daniel_Burnett
16:00:50 <dom> Zakim, ??P58 is me
16:00:57 <fjh> fjh has joined #webrtc
16:01:10 <Zakim> +Daniel_Burnett; got it
16:01:14 <burn> zakim, I am Daniel_Burnett
16:01:20 <Zakim> +dom; got it
16:02:00 <fjh> zakim,  I am fjh
16:02:02 <Zakim> ok, burn, I now associate you with Daniel_Burnett
16:02:03 <hta> zakim, I am Harald_Alvestrand
16:02:15 <Zakim> + +46.1.07.14.aacc
16:02:20 <Zakim> +??P5
16:02:22 <fjh> zakim, who is here?
16:02:25 <Zakim> +[Mozilla]
16:02:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:02:28 <stefanh> zakim, aacc is stefanh
16:02:34 <fjh> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:02:47 <darobin> Zakim, ??P5 is probably me
16:02:53 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:03:04 <Zakim> sorry, fjh, I do not see a party named 'fjh'
16:03:09 <Zakim> sorry, hta, I do not see a party named 'Harald_Alvestrand'
16:03:09 <hta> well known keyboard? :-)
16:03:12 <Zakim> + +1.610.889.aadd
16:03:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see fluffy, hta, Josh_Soref, Daniel_Burnett, dom, +46.1.07.14.aacc, ??P5, [Mozilla], [IPcaller], +1.610.889.aadd
16:03:18 <stefanh> Zakim, aacc is me
16:03:27 <Zakim> +stefanh; got it
16:03:35 <Zakim> + +1.415.800.aaee
16:03:42 <Zakim> +fjh; got it
16:03:45 <Zakim> +darobin?; got it
16:03:46 <jesup> jesup has joined #webrtc
16:03:46 <darobin> hta: yeah, whenever I don't have access to the conference room, people hear my rather distinctive typing style :)
16:04:01 <anant> anant has joined #webrtc
16:04:05 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: dom (4%), stefanh (9%)
16:04:06 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, darobin is darobin 
16:04:26 <Zakim> sorry, stefanh, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc'
16:04:29 <Zakim> On IRC I see fjh, darobin, Josh_Soref, burn, stefanh, hta, RRSAgent, Zakim, fluffy, richt_, tsachev, ed, derf, trackbot, rektide, dom
16:04:32 <darobin> Zakim, darobin is really darobin 
16:05:10 <anant> Zakim: +anant
16:05:11 <Zakim> +darobin; got it
16:05:11 <Josh_Soref> scribe: Josh_Soref 
16:05:16 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:05:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
16:05:22 <dom> Zakim, [Mozilla] holds anant
16:05:27 <Zakim> +darobin; got it
16:05:51 <hta> yes.
16:06:14 <Josh_Soref> s/yes.//
16:06:26 <Josh_Soref> s/Zakim: +anant/Present+ anant/
16:06:32 <Zakim> +anant; got it
16:06:39 <Josh_Soref> xxx: the proposed agenda
16:06:48 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Agenda
16:06:51 <anant> s/xxx/StefanH
16:07:02 <Josh_Soref> StefanH: ... Capabilities and Privacy
16:07:07 <Josh_Soref> ... and xx2
16:07:15 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Capabilities and Privacy
16:07:25 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: I've asked xxz to introduce that
16:07:36 <anant> s/xxz/burn
16:07:39 <Josh_Soref> xxz: so, what i'm going to do is give a brief summary of what we've talked about
16:07:51 <Josh_Soref> burn: we may have to review some of the arguments we were given
16:07:59 <Josh_Soref> ... a number of people were talking about capabilities
16:08:04 <Josh_Soref> ... and also about fingerprinting
16:08:11 <stefanh> my IRC client cant beep with audio
16:08:12 <Josh_Soref> ... what we did at the last WebRTC meeting
16:08:21 <Josh_Soref> ... was discuss xxa
16:08:29 <Josh_Soref> ... I'll jump to the conclusion of that really long discussion
16:08:38 <Josh_Soref> ... there was a consensus that capabilities information was needed
16:08:45 <Zakim> + +44.208.144.aaff
16:08:45 <Josh_Soref> ... to build applications with WebRTC apis
16:08:53 <Josh_Soref> ... for those unfamiliar with this
16:08:55 <richt_> zakim, aaff is me
16:08:55 <Zakim> +richt_; got it
16:09:01 <richt_> Present+ Rich_Tibbett
16:09:01 <Josh_Soref> ... it may seem obvious that this was necessary
16:09:08 <Josh_Soref> ... but it wasn't
16:09:11 <Travis> Travis has joined #webrtc
16:09:17 <Josh_Soref> ... we tried to decide initially whether we really needed it
16:09:24 <Josh_Soref> ... there are applications like Presence
16:09:27 <Travis> Present+ Travis_Leithead
16:09:33 <Josh_Soref> ... where you need to know the means through which you can contact people
16:09:41 <dom> ->  http://www.w3.org/2012/02/01-webrtc-minutes.html#cap Discussions on capabilities and fingerprinting at the WebRTC F2F last week
16:09:49 <Josh_Soref> ... for a Dating site, you may want to give preference to those with a WebCam available
16:09:56 <Josh_Soref> ... that's one example, there were others
16:10:07 <Josh_Soref> ... there was a conclusion that capabilities were needed for the apps people would like to build
16:10:12 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
16:10:19 <Josh_Soref> ... as part of this discussion, there was a discussion about the level of capabilities
16:10:28 <Josh_Soref> ... do you just want high level, or details
16:10:34 <Travis> * What's the conf call code?
16:10:37 <Josh_Soref> ... we didn't really come to a clear consensus on the level
16:10:38 <stefanh> Present+ Stefan_Hakansson
16:10:53 <Josh_Soref> ... the richer you want the application to be
16:11:00 <Josh_Soref> ... the more details you want about the client
16:11:17 <Josh_Soref> ... the details will depend on how much you trust the application
16:11:22 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:11:27 <Josh_Soref> ... most people generally trust an application they've locally installed
16:11:53 <Josh_Soref> ... we might want to consider how much capabilities to expose
16:11:59 <Josh_Soref> ... based on how much you've dealt with a site
16:12:05 <Josh_Soref> ... e.g. giving more details once you've logged in
16:12:11 <Josh_Soref> ... for a downloadable-installable-webapp
16:12:22 <Josh_Soref> ... essentially a shell installed on a machine
16:12:31 <Josh_Soref> ... in that case, you may not need to ask about using mic+camera
16:12:45 <Josh_Soref> ... even though if you were to visit the site live you would need to ask (same general app)
16:12:55 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm sure there will continue to be a discussion on this
16:12:59 <Josh_Soref> ... some people proposed...
16:13:05 <Josh_Soref> ... considering Google Hangout
16:13:12 <Josh_Soref> ... and try to design to support for that
16:13:24 <Josh_Soref> ... some wanted to do other things than that, for which they want more capability info
16:13:29 <Josh_Soref> ... we didn't reach a consensus on that
16:13:36 <Josh_Soref> ... that's probably a high level summary
16:13:39 <Josh_Soref> ... one other thing
16:13:48 <Josh_Soref> ... i didn't mention fingerprinting above
16:13:53 <Zakim> -darobin.a
16:13:56 <Josh_Soref> ... but we did discus it quite a bit
16:14:16 <Josh_Soref> ... it was brought up that there are already many bits available for a user w/o this
16:14:28 <Josh_Soref> ... sites may eventually be able to uniquely identify you
16:14:38 <Josh_Soref> ... they know you bought item X at a store
16:14:46 <Josh_Soref> ... because they happen to have sufficient information about you
16:14:52 <Josh_Soref> ... not because they're using linking cookies
16:14:58 <Josh_Soref> ... this is why it was brought up
16:15:03 <Josh_Soref> ... there are sites that you trust
16:15:12 <Josh_Soref> ... sites like Facebook may already know who you are
16:15:15 <Zakim> +??P5
16:15:19 <Josh_Soref> ... for some sites, you may not be giving more information
16:15:24 <darobin> Zakim, ??P5 is me
16:15:24 <Zakim> +darobin; got it
16:15:25 <fjh> q+
16:15:28 <Josh_Soref> ... ok that's about it
16:15:29 <jesup> Too much information makes things like private browsing not private - can even be dangerous in some cases
16:15:31 <Josh_Soref> ... any questions?
16:15:36 <Zakim> -darobin
16:15:38 <Josh_Soref> fjh: Question about other privacy concerns
16:15:44 <Josh_Soref> ... use of the camera/audio
16:15:48 <Josh_Soref> ... without the user knowing it
16:15:50 <fjh> q?
16:15:52 <fjh> q-
16:16:01 <Josh_Soref> burn: there has always been a requirement about notifying users of use
16:16:10 <Josh_Soref> ... this was just a discussion about when things are being used
16:16:26 <Josh_Soref> burn: any other questions
16:16:36 <Josh_Soref> xxb: comments
16:16:49 <Josh_Soref> ... i think it makes sense to have levels about how much capabilities are actually exposed
16:16:57 <Josh_Soref> ... about media being transmitted
16:17:01 <derf> Zakim, [Mozilla] holds derf
16:17:01 <Zakim> +derf; got it
16:17:02 <Josh_Soref> ... browsers are not the only HTML clients
16:17:23 <Josh_Soref> ... while browsers should notify users that cameras are on
16:17:30 <Josh_Soref> ... it might not make sense for a smart phone to tell a user that
16:17:40 <Josh_Soref> ... you might want to write a dialer in HTML5 using getUserMedia
16:18:01 <Josh_Soref> ... but it doesn't make sense for the dialer to have to ask for permission or be limited in the data it gets about the hardware
16:18:08 <Josh_Soref> ... that's where defining two separate levels is useful
16:18:08 <jesup> Zakim, [Mozilla] holds jesup
16:18:08 <Zakim> +jesup; got it
16:18:22 <Josh_Soref> ... then the useragent can decide based on the use case about what to disclose
16:18:31 <Josh_Soref> ... for a browser / random web sites, that's less
16:18:39 <Josh_Soref> ... and for a telephone, the UA could disclose more
16:18:47 <Josh_Soref> ... the spec can define both
16:18:54 <Josh_Soref> ... and the UA can decide which class to apply for the app
16:19:09 <Josh_Soref> s/xxb/anant/
16:19:18 <Josh_Soref> burn: there wasn't necessarily consensus on 2 levels
16:19:22 <Josh_Soref> ... there was interest on multiple levels
16:19:27 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe more than 2
16:19:32 <Josh_Soref> ... anant was interested in 2
16:19:52 <Josh_Soref> ... i think it might be a good approach to have multiple levels
16:19:56 <Josh_Soref> ... any other questions?
16:20:06 <Josh_Soref> dancohen: Dan Cohen here
16:20:14 <Josh_Soref> ... one question i had was about notifications about capabilities changing
16:20:22 <Josh_Soref> ... let's say you had permission to know about capabilities
16:20:23 <anant> s/dancohen/cullen
16:20:32 <Josh_Soref> ... and someone plugged in a camera
16:20:35 <anant> s/cullen/fluffy
16:20:40 <dom> s/Dan Cohen/Cullen/
16:20:42 <Josh_Soref> burn: we didn't get consensus on that
16:20:56 <Josh_Soref> ... we didn't have time to discuss in detail how that would work
16:21:01 <Josh_Soref> ... how frequent, or how it would look
16:21:16 <Josh_Soref> xxc: some part of that will be tied to what levels of capabilities we have
16:21:26 <Josh_Soref> ... but when they change, it makes sense to notify at the same level
16:21:33 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't think there's a risk of notifying within the same level
16:21:36 <Josh_Soref> burn: i agree
16:21:39 <Josh_Soref> q+
16:21:56 <Josh_Soref> chair1: I've heard a lot of people speaking from WebRTC
16:22:01 <anant> s/xxc/anant
16:22:05 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like to hear feedback from the DAP people
16:22:15 <Josh_Soref> xxd: focus on what parts are different
16:22:16 <anant> s/chair1/stefanh
16:22:22 <Josh_Soref> burn: what important things did we miss?
16:22:25 <anant> s/xxd/harald
16:22:32 <Josh_Soref> fjh: one question is: how do we establish this trust
16:22:38 <Josh_Soref> ... one way is how to establish trust
16:22:43 <Josh_Soref> ... installing an app is one way
16:22:50 <Josh_Soref> burn: we didn't get to that
16:23:00 <Josh_Soref> xxe: my proposal is to let the UA figure it out
16:23:07 <Josh_Soref> ... i think we should leave it up to the UA to decide
16:23:14 <Josh_Soref> xxf: I have some worry about this
16:23:24 <Josh_Soref> ... i understand that things will be different for certain environments
16:23:28 <stefanh> s/xxf/fluffy/
16:23:38 <Josh_Soref> ... we should say "if you're a browser, you should probably do this"
16:23:40 <dom> s/xxe/anant/
16:23:48 <Josh_Soref> ... it's not like the standard police will go after you 
16:23:51 <Josh_Soref> xxg: right
16:24:04 <dom> s/xxg/anant/
16:24:04 <Josh_Soref> q?
16:24:12 <Josh_Soref> xxh: for Chrome and Firefox we have means to escalate privelege
16:24:15 <Josh_Soref> ... and IE
16:24:21 <Josh_Soref> ... I don't know if Travis has comments on that
16:24:25 <Travis> q+
16:24:32 <Josh_Soref> ... I think all three have a way to say that 
16:24:33 <dom> s/xxh/anant/
16:24:52 <fjh> q+
16:24:57 <Josh_Soref> [ Scribe explains that you need to introduce yourself ]
16:25:05 <Josh_Soref> Travis: it was brought up about Windows Metro apps
16:25:09 <Josh_Soref> ... and capabilities / permissions
16:25:16 <dom> ack Josh_Soref
16:25:19 <Josh_Soref> ... while i think it's good to describe the options for UAs
16:25:20 <dom> ack Travis
16:25:29 <Josh_Soref> ... it might be useful in our spec to categorize these things
16:25:35 <Josh_Soref> ... one categorization is:
16:25:40 <Josh_Soref> ... is this Implicitly trusted
16:25:44 <Josh_Soref> ... is this Implicitly untrusted
16:25:46 <jesup> Zakim, aadd is me
16:25:46 <Zakim> +jesup; got it
16:26:00 <Josh_Soref> ... determining how frequently you want to ask / what mechanism, is too far
16:26:10 <Josh_Soref> xxj: you're not talking about Trust in the UA
16:26:17 <Josh_Soref> Travis: I think that's what i'm addressing
16:26:21 <Josh_Soref> ... from a high level point of view
16:26:24 <Josh_Soref> ... if the UA is a Phone
16:26:25 <anant> s/xxj/harald
16:26:31 <Josh_Soref> ... I think there's a point at which I grant permission
16:26:32 <dom> [DAP has had similar discussions many times; but unless we have a good story around trusted/untrusted, I think we should just focus on untrusted for the time being]
16:26:41 <Josh_Soref> ... and that can be done when the hardware is built
16:26:54 <Josh_Soref> ... if the UA is a Browser, and it can be exposed to untrusted apps
16:27:00 <Josh_Soref> ... then it's a different category
16:27:10 <Josh_Soref> fjh: I had a question about the earlier statement
16:27:17 <Josh_Soref> ... about the browser being able to know based on the url
16:27:23 <Josh_Soref> anant: it's not based on the URL
16:27:28 <Josh_Soref> ... for Chrome, you can go to the Chrome web store
16:27:33 <Josh_Soref> ... and install an application
16:27:41 <Josh_Soref> ... that's the mechanism of establishing trust
16:27:57 <Josh_Soref> i/not based/... is there an example?/
16:28:11 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: are we finished addressing capabilities?
16:28:16 <Josh_Soref> burn: one other question
16:28:20 <hta> s/stefanh/harald/
16:28:26 <Josh_Soref> ... cases where trust might be improved over time
16:28:36 <Josh_Soref> ... we've covered distinctions between UAs that may or may not be trusted
16:28:43 <Josh_Soref> ... and apps that may or may not be trusted
16:28:47 <Josh_Soref> ... but there's this other level
16:28:53 <Josh_Soref> ... say i'm using a Web Browser
16:28:59 <Josh_Soref> ... and i'm using some online application
16:29:02 <Josh_Soref> ... that i did not install
16:29:23 <Josh_Soref> ... that doesn't mean that i might not want to have the ability to gradually improve the privilege of the app
16:29:35 <Josh_Soref> ... I may not have a problem with an app knowing that i have a camera/microphone
16:29:37 <dom> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0554.html Installing web apps, Robin Berjon, Feb 7 2012
16:29:42 <Josh_Soref> ... when I was expressing concern about two levels
16:29:59 <Travis> q+
16:30:03 <fjh> ack fjh
16:30:21 <Josh_Soref> ... it may be convenient for me to say "i trust this <app|site|domain>"
16:30:34 <Josh_Soref> ... I'm saying there may be "trusted-noninstalled-apps"
16:30:38 <Josh_Soref> ... it may be another category
16:30:51 <Josh_Soref> xxL: by category i'm talking about the information provided
16:31:00 <Josh_Soref> ... not about how the category is established
16:31:01 <stefanh> s/xxl/anant/
16:31:20 <stefanh> s/xxL/anant/
16:31:29 <Josh_Soref> ... installation need not be the only way to establish a category
16:31:34 <Josh_Soref> ... we need to provide another way
16:31:35 <Travis> q-
16:31:42 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't know immediately what those ways might look like
16:31:53 <Josh_Soref> xxm: do we want to talk at all about what capabilities could be discovered?
16:32:00 <jesup> Perhaps a request for added trust causes a geolocation-type doorhanger
16:32:02 <dom> s/xxm/fluffy
16:32:13 <Josh_Soref> ... for the trusted ring, i don't think we need to hide anything
16:32:30 <Josh_Soref> ... then there's the question about how simple we want the JavaScript api to be
16:32:35 <Josh_Soref> ... we don't need to limit for fingerprinting
16:32:42 <Josh_Soref> xxn: overloading... 
16:32:59 <Josh_Soref> burn: I agree that we can hide more detailed in a tiered object
16:33:12 <Josh_Soref> ... for apps that we're interested in, we definitely want everything to be available
16:33:19 <Josh_Soref> xxo: an expandable set
16:33:32 <Josh_Soref> Travis: i'm a little concerned about how that principle leads this door right open
16:33:36 <stefanh> s/xxo/harald/
16:33:40 <Josh_Soref> ... how do we specify *everything* about a device
16:33:45 <Josh_Soref> ... i come from the security camp
16:33:57 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like to expose the least amount to get by
16:34:01 <dom> +1 to Travis
16:34:02 <fjh> +1 to least priviledge
16:34:07 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like to iterate over time about what to expose
16:34:14 <Josh_Soref> q+ to talk about device discrimination
16:34:26 <Josh_Soref> xxp: if i have an app on my desktop
16:34:31 <fjh> that is the problem with desktop apps, and viruses etc
16:34:32 <Josh_Soref> ... it knows everything about my device
16:34:39 <stefanh> s/xxp/burn/
16:34:40 <Josh_Soref> ... if i try to build something in my browser
16:34:52 <Josh_Soref> ... i want to be able to do everything i could do with that app
16:35:00 <Josh_Soref> Travis: for each device, the details are slightly different
16:35:11 <Josh_Soref> ... having to read up on every driver's technique for exposing information is painful
16:35:27 <Josh_Soref> xxq: for desktop applications, there isn't a well defined api to get most of the information
16:35:35 <stefanh> s/xxq/fluffy/
16:35:40 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't know burn, i don't think it's really what you think
16:35:49 <Josh_Soref> fluffy: i think concrete examples will be helpful
16:36:01 <Josh_Soref> burn: if i want to build something as rich as what i can have on my computer
16:36:09 <Josh_Soref> ... whatever i can get from my desktop is sufficient
16:36:14 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm not asking for more than that
16:36:19 <Josh_Soref> xxr: i'll want more
16:36:22 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:36:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
16:36:28 <dom> s/xxr/fluffy/
16:36:29 <fluffy> s/xxr/fluffy/
16:36:33 <Josh_Soref> q?
16:36:43 <fluffy> q?
16:36:43 <dom> ack Josh_Soref
16:36:44 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to talk about device discrimination
16:37:01 <dom> Josh_Soref: my concern is that I'd like to be able to even buy an application and use it on one device
16:37:16 <dom> ... and then use it on a different device with different parameters, assuming the application is transferable
16:37:39 <dom> ... the app shouldn't stop working because the app would be hardwired to a specific user agent or device
16:38:20 <dom> ... I appreciate teh ability to have precise details or about general things, I want to make sure we don't make it too easy for apps to be hardcoded for some specific hardware configuration
16:38:23 <dom> s/teh/the/
16:38:45 <Josh_Soref> chair2: i'd like to move to the next topic
16:38:50 <dom> s/chair2/hta/
16:39:08 <Josh_Soref> xxs: can we send out proposals for how to deal with Levels and moving from level to level?
16:39:12 <dom> s/xxs/anant/
16:39:16 <Josh_Soref> ... burn can you send in a proposal?
16:39:22 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm happy to send in one as well
16:39:28 <Josh_Soref> burn: i'm willing to send in one, let's talk offline
16:39:43 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Scenarios
16:39:50 <Travis> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture/scenarios.html
16:39:53 <Josh_Soref> Travis: I was asked to put together a Scenarios document for Media Capture
16:40:05 <Josh_Soref> ... the goal of the document was to establish the set of realistic scenarios
16:40:11 <Josh_Soref> ... that lightly touch on the things you might want to do
16:40:21 <Josh_Soref> ... with a capture API if you had one available
16:40:34 <Josh_Soref> ... i tried to spread it across both browsers and installed applications
16:40:41 <Josh_Soref> ... i didn't want to write this as a requirements document
16:40:47 <Josh_Soref> ... i wrote it for an Average user
16:40:51 <Josh_Soref> ... not one with 30 cameras
16:41:05 <Josh_Soref> ... I had a few sections: Scenarios, and Rants and Raves
16:41:13 <Josh_Soref> ... [Section 5]
16:41:21 <Josh_Soref> ... We at Microsoft have experimented with things
16:41:28 <Josh_Soref> ... I have commentary
16:41:40 <Josh_Soref> ... Section 5 as it is in the document is what I consider less important to the scenarios
16:41:46 <Josh_Soref> ... but still worth considering
16:41:50 <fjh> some comments I offered on the scenarios document -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Feb/0012.html
16:41:50 <Josh_Soref> ... there are 6 scenarios
16:41:58 <Josh_Soref> ... i can talk through them if the group wants
16:42:05 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: maybe you could go quickly through them
16:42:15 <Josh_Soref> Travis: there are 6 scenarios
16:42:37 <Josh_Soref> ... the first scenario is a user, like a Facebook user
16:42:45 <Josh_Soref> ... using it to capture an image from their webcam
16:42:55 <Josh_Soref> ... the app provides a ui, that enables the camera to turn on
16:42:58 <Josh_Soref> ... and capture a single image
16:43:06 <Josh_Soref> ... the ability has the ability to capture audio
16:43:09 <Josh_Soref> ... for an audio caption
16:43:17 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe converted to text and put on the web page
16:43:24 <Josh_Soref> ... the second scenario is about an enthused user
16:43:28 <Josh_Soref> ... more active in Blogging
16:43:31 <Josh_Soref> ... this is a Video Blog
16:43:45 <Josh_Soref> ... and he goes and describes his commentary on the Political situation
16:43:51 <Josh_Soref> ... he has some friends who will join him
16:44:00 <Josh_Soref> ... they will initiate connections to certain parties
16:44:06 <Josh_Soref> ... who will join in at the end
16:44:17 <Josh_Soref> xxt: when you talked about switching browser caps
16:44:22 <Josh_Soref> s/caps/tabs/
16:44:26 <dom> s/xxt/fluffy/
16:44:34 <Josh_Soref> Travis: a detail on the text in the scenario
16:44:43 <Josh_Soref> ... he's watching himself do the recording in the browser tab
16:44:49 <Josh_Soref> ... he may need to switch to see some other data
16:45:05 <Josh_Soref> ... it was meant to say that the ability to have the camera running in the background is important to consider
16:45:33 <Josh_Soref> ... the conferencing scenario needs to keep the conference up
16:45:44 <Josh_Soref> ... the third scenario is a student working on an image processing course
16:45:56 <Josh_Soref> ... the teacher has put specific requirements on the size of the video for the assignment
16:46:09 <Josh_Soref> ... the student has to ensure the video fits the parameters
16:46:14 <Josh_Soref> ... she can't operate on a large video
16:46:23 <Josh_Soref> ... she may not need to trust the site
16:46:31 <Josh_Soref> ... fourth scenario is a mobile scenario
16:46:34 <Josh_Soref> ... a user traveling
16:46:38 <Josh_Soref> ... recording a video diary
16:46:44 <Josh_Soref> ... introduces a front and back camera
16:46:50 <Josh_Soref> ... record what he can see, and record himself
16:46:54 <Josh_Soref> ... and switch back
16:47:02 <Josh_Soref> ... fifth scenario is a Conference call
16:47:07 <Josh_Soref> ... there's a scribe recording the conference
16:47:16 <Josh_Soref> ... there are participants participating via their own browser
16:47:28 <Josh_Soref> ... this scenario lets the scribe put the call on hold
16:47:30 <Josh_Soref> +1
16:47:39 <Josh_Soref> Travis: to review the video and catch up on scribing
16:47:45 <Josh_Soref> ... I know Josh_Soref would like that, so i put it in there
16:47:50 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: thanks
16:48:00 <Josh_Soref> Travis: the sixth scenario is privacy
16:48:12 <Josh_Soref> ... you're browsing and stumble upon a page which asks for permission to use your camrea
16:48:14 <fjh> q+
16:48:17 <Josh_Soref> s/camrea/camera/
16:48:19 <Josh_Soref> ... and you deny it
16:48:24 <Josh_Soref> ... i captured these 6 scenarios
16:48:28 <Josh_Soref> ... i think it covers most things
16:48:37 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like to base our api around allowing these cases
16:48:45 <Josh_Soref> ... if we want to scope down from this, that's ok
16:48:54 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: thanks
16:49:04 <Josh_Soref> ... this document has had a lot of reviewing
16:49:13 <Josh_Soref> ... chairs would like to propose moving it to FPWD
16:49:17 <Josh_Soref> fjh: i had a couple of cmments
16:49:22 <Josh_Soref> s/cmments/comments/
16:49:26 <Josh_Soref> ... one that i'd like to go in before
16:49:40 <Josh_Soref> ... i think that capturing a media stream in section 5 is another scenario
16:49:46 <Josh_Soref> ... i think it warrants another scenario
16:49:53 <Josh_Soref> Travis: i saw that fjh and thank you for posting it
16:50:02 <Josh_Soref> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture/scenarios.html#capturing-a-media-stream
16:50:10 <Josh_Soref> Travis: i will try to address that comment before we publish
16:50:20 <Josh_Soref> fjh: thank you
16:50:36 <Josh_Soref> ... the other thing is what to do when multiple applications try to access the camera
16:50:36 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #webrtc
16:50:43 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm not saying it should hold up FPWD
16:50:49 <Josh_Soref> ... but i think it's an important concern
16:50:53 <Josh_Soref> Travis: thank you, and i agree with that
16:50:59 <Josh_Soref> ... that's going to be interesting
16:51:03 <fjh> q?
16:51:04 <Josh_Soref> ... I might have multiple web browsers
16:51:05 <fjh> q-
16:51:11 <Josh_Soref> ... and an OS limitation might only allow one access at a time
16:51:18 <Josh_Soref> ... so if i have 2 open, and they both try at the same time
16:51:24 <Josh_Soref> ... it can lead to amusing results
16:51:29 <Zakim> +Doug_Schepers
16:51:37 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: if no one here objects, we will ask the WebRTC+DAP WGs
16:51:43 <Josh_Soref> ... and then will move it to FPWD
16:51:54 <Josh_Soref> dom: I think we should make a short CfC in both groups
16:52:03 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: fjh will you take care of that for DAP?
16:52:11 <Josh_Soref> fjh: I'm not sure i understand what you're asking
16:52:26 <Josh_Soref> dom: formally WGs need to approve requests to publish drafts
16:52:32 <Josh_Soref> fjh: sure, i can do that
16:52:39 <shepazu> q+
16:52:40 <Josh_Soref> ... and if Travis includes the change, that would be great
16:53:03 <Josh_Soref> ACTION Travis to integrate fjh 's capturing a media stream as a scenario
16:53:03 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Travis
16:53:05 <fjh> action: fjh to send CfC to DAP re FPWD of Scenarios document upon Travis edit
16:53:05 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - fjh
16:53:14 <Josh_Soref> shepazu: Doug Sheppers
16:53:19 <Josh_Soref> ... I work for W3C
16:53:27 <Josh_Soref> ... I'm the Staff Contact for the Audio Group
16:53:49 <Josh_Soref> ... I want to make people aware that people in the Audio group are interested in participating
16:53:57 <Josh_Soref> ... we have things we'd like to put forward and discuss
16:54:02 <hta> fjh, who are you?
16:54:05 <Josh_Soref> ... particularly about multiple line ins
16:54:17 <Josh_Soref> ... and possibly midi bits
16:54:44 <Josh_Soref> i/shepazu:/Topic: Audio WG request to join TF/
16:54:51 <Josh_Soref> dom: we have two options
16:54:58 <Josh_Soref> ... we can convert the TF from 2WG to 3WG
16:55:08 <Josh_Soref> ... or we can ask the Audio WG to send inputs to the TF as is
16:55:17 <Josh_Soref> shepazu: I think the lightest weight thing we could do right now
16:55:23 <Josh_Soref> ... is for us to send you our use cases and requirements
16:55:29 <Josh_Soref> ... i'll talk w/ dom off list
16:55:34 <Josh_Soref> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture/scenarios.html
16:55:34 <dom> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/dap/raw-file/tip/media-stream-capture/scenarios.html#capturing-a-media-stream
16:55:44 <Josh_Soref> shepazu: i'll see if anyone feels the need to actually join the TF
16:55:52 <Josh_Soref> ... we're really happy to see this work moving forward
16:55:59 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't know if particular individuals
16:56:07 <Josh_Soref> ... need to call in or need to participate
16:56:17 <Josh_Soref> ... or if they're happy to let the TF do the work
16:56:52 <Josh_Soref> xxu: the reason for the TF is because of constraints
16:56:56 <Josh_Soref> ... are there any participants in Audio who are not in WebRTC/DAP?
16:57:05 <Josh_Soref> ... dom: don't you have a tool to look for overlap
16:57:06 <hta> s/xxu/hta/
16:57:15 <Josh_Soref> ... I know that Apple / Intel just joined
16:57:24 <Josh_Soref> ... they might have a problem
16:57:47 <Josh_Soref> hta: if you could drop a note to Audio asking if people would have a problem joining the TF, that'd be good
16:57:52 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:57:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
16:57:55 <dom> -> https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/overlap?ids[46884]=on&ids[47318]=on Overlap between Audio and WebRTC: Opera, Intel, Mozilla, Google
16:58:08 <Josh_Soref> shepazu: dom maybe you and i can talk offlist
16:58:12 <Josh_Soref> ... and i'll communicate back
16:58:26 <hta> I think we're looking for the disjunciton - orgs in audio who are neither in dap nor in webrtc
16:58:38 <dom> -> https://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/overlap?ids[46884]=on&ids[43696]=on Overlap between DAP and Audio: Opera, Intel, Mozilla
16:58:49 <fjh> s/disjunciton/disjunction/
16:58:51 <Josh_Soref> Topic: API Document
16:58:58 <Josh_Soref> anant: status...
16:59:02 <Josh_Soref> ... we have a document that's published
16:59:09 <Josh_Soref> ... and we have some implementations
16:59:09 <Travis> http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html
16:59:12 <Josh_Soref> ... and some demo applications
16:59:23 <Josh_Soref> ... we've also heard some feedback from web developers
16:59:33 <Josh_Soref> ... on how they they think the api works for them
16:59:41 <Josh_Soref> ... and i think we have some work before we publish a WD
16:59:47 <Josh_Soref> ... some issues we need to cover
16:59:54 <Josh_Soref> ... Capabilities and Privacy
17:00:03 <Josh_Soref> ... related to Capabilities/proposals
17:00:12 <Josh_Soref> ... we didn't reach a solution on Hints
17:00:16 <Josh_Soref> ... that's issue #1
17:00:32 <dom> (the disjunction is thus Apple, BBC and INRIA)
17:00:34 <Josh_Soref> ... I don't know if you want to discuss point by point
17:00:43 <Josh_Soref> ... the first one is Media Stream Options
17:00:48 <Josh_Soref> ... which is not really defined as a hint
17:01:00 <Josh_Soref> ... currently the call should fail if you ask for Video and don't get it
17:01:13 <Josh_Soref> ... we might want a way to provide a hint
17:01:19 <Josh_Soref> ... issue #2
17:01:23 <Josh_Soref> ... is extensibility
17:01:30 <Josh_Soref> ... it seems like Dictionaries make sense
17:01:44 <Josh_Soref> ... we need a procedure to later extend the options, capabilities, or hints
17:01:48 <Josh_Soref> ... issue #3
17:01:51 <shepazu> s/Dictionaries/Javascript Dictionaries/
17:01:52 <Josh_Soref> ... events versus callbacks
17:02:00 <Josh_Soref> s/Javascript/WebIDL/
17:02:07 <Josh_Soref> ... most new APIs prefer not to use Callbacks
17:02:17 <Josh_Soref> ... when you're writing multiple pieces of code
17:02:25 <Josh_Soref> ... using addEventListener seems to be the standard way
17:02:39 <Josh_Soref> ... so multiple pieces of JavaScript code can get callbacks
17:02:44 <dom> +1 on using EventTagget
17:02:45 <Josh_Soref> ... issue #4
17:02:51 <dom> s/Tagget/Target/
17:02:58 <Josh_Soref> ... what the behavior should be when the api is called in an iframe
17:03:09 <Josh_Soref> ... currently Geolocation ignores calls in iframes
17:03:17 <Josh_Soref> ... my proposal is to do the same for video
17:03:27 <Josh_Soref> s/Geo/the US-Geo/
17:03:34 <dom> +1 on limiting getUserMedia to top level page (until we have a better model for permissions)
17:03:35 <Josh_Soref> s/ignores/API ignores/
17:03:41 <Josh_Soref> ... issue #5
17:03:52 <Josh_Soref> ... we need to define the behavior for Browsers, as fluffy mentioned
17:03:57 <Josh_Soref> ... UI recommendations
17:04:16 <Josh_Soref> ... text like "we recommend the UA notify the User when the Camera is transmitting"
17:04:28 <Josh_Soref> ... "or the microphone is turned on"
17:04:35 <Josh_Soref> ... I don't know how to do this in a consistent way
17:04:36 <shepazu> (I agree with Dom, but can see use cases for delegation, especially with mashups or service reuse)
17:04:38 <Josh_Soref> ... issue #6
17:04:48 <Josh_Soref> ... we need to specifically define what happens when you switch away
17:04:54 <Josh_Soref> ... it's clear that we need to support it
17:04:59 <Josh_Soref> ... if i call getUserMedia
17:05:03 <Josh_Soref> ... and I switch away
17:05:10 <Josh_Soref> ... sometimes i want it to continue
17:05:13 <Josh_Soref> ... and sometimes i don't
17:05:29 <Josh_Soref> ... should getUserMedia fail when i switch away
17:05:38 <Josh_Soref> ... there are also privacy implications
17:05:49 <Josh_Soref> ... I think all should be tackled (considered?) before we move on to a WD
17:05:52 <Josh_Soref> ... that's all I had
17:05:54 <Travis> q+
17:05:55 <dom> (if camera selection is done via the chrome, I think the browser should be responsible for alerting the user of conflicting pages asking for access to a given camera)
17:05:57 <dom> q+
17:05:59 <Josh_Soref> ack shepazu 
17:06:10 <richt_> q+
17:06:17 <fluffy> q+
17:06:32 <hta> q+
17:06:36 <Josh_Soref> xxw: GetUserMedia
17:06:39 <Josh_Soref> ... takes 2 options
17:06:40 <shepazu> q-
17:06:44 <Josh_Soref> ... there was a proposal for adding hints
17:06:54 <Josh_Soref> ... we've decided we need capabilities
17:07:00 <Josh_Soref> ... i think we need an api for capabilities
17:07:02 <dom> can't we get optional video stream  with {video: {optional: true} } ?
17:07:06 <Josh_Soref> ... we can't tie it to getUserMedia
17:07:10 <Josh_Soref> s/Get/get/
17:07:16 <Josh_Soref> ... because you need it before you make the call
17:07:23 <Josh_Soref> hta: reminder to give names before speaking
17:07:29 <Josh_Soref> ack Travis 
17:07:35 <Josh_Soref> Travis: I've taken both sides of the stance
17:07:46 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm divided against myself
17:07:49 <Josh_Soref> ... originally
17:07:54 <Josh_Soref> ... before you request getUserMedia
17:08:01 <Josh_Soref> ... you want to know if the device supports recording
17:08:11 <Josh_Soref> ... because i don't want to promote a pattern
17:08:25 <Josh_Soref> ... where you continuously hit getUserMedia probing for stuff
17:08:39 <Josh_Soref> ... try for Video+Audio, fail, ok, lemme try for Video
17:08:52 <Josh_Soref> ... in that sense, i like knowing about things in advance
17:08:57 <Josh_Soref> ... At the same time
17:09:03 <Josh_Soref> ... I'd like to call the api with what I need
17:09:14 <Josh_Soref> ... and then be informed when it's ready
17:09:19 <Josh_Soref> ... or call with my baseline
17:09:25 <Josh_Soref> ... and then have a way to adjust my requests
17:09:31 <Josh_Soref> ... rather than having to reprobe
17:09:32 <burn> q+
17:09:41 <Josh_Soref> ack dom 
17:09:52 <Josh_Soref> dom: Am I supposed to talk only about issue 1?
17:09:58 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: I think they're all tied together
17:10:00 <Josh_Soref> dom: ok
17:10:07 <Josh_Soref> dom: anant you were listing all these issues
17:10:18 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't see them in the draft, and i don't think they're in tracker either
17:10:20 <Josh_Soref> anant: yes
17:10:24 <Josh_Soref> ... I just made them up
17:10:36 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm happy to convert them to tracker
17:10:42 <Josh_Soref> ... is Tracker Tracker or Bugzilla?
17:10:50 <Josh_Soref> dom: let's talk about that offline
17:10:57 <Josh_Soref> dom: hints v. options
17:11:12 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm wondering if we can't have in the option object
17:11:20 <Josh_Soref> ... if you could have required:true/optional:true
17:11:35 <Josh_Soref> ... i think we have a way to design optional arguments there,
17:11:54 <Josh_Soref> ... personally a group of you were at the meeting last week
17:12:02 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm a bit uncomfortable with getting abilities
17:12:11 <Josh_Soref> ... as it seems to lead to a great privacy breach
17:12:25 <Josh_Soref> ... initially, i'd like to design getUserMedia without assuming there would be a capabilities api
17:12:38 <Josh_Soref> ... otherwise i agree supporting limiting getUserMedia to the top level page
17:12:43 <Josh_Soref> ... and I support moving to addEventListener
17:12:52 <Josh_Soref> ... that covers most of the issues
17:12:52 <Josh_Soref> q?
17:12:54 <Josh_Soref> ack richt_ 
17:12:59 <Josh_Soref> richt_: Rich T from Opera
17:13:04 <Josh_Soref> ... I have feedback on all of these issues
17:13:10 <Josh_Soref> ... we have done some prototyping
17:13:14 <Josh_Soref> ... so let's start with hints
17:13:17 <Josh_Soref> ... we're really excited about hints
17:13:25 <Josh_Soref> ... we don't particularly want the capabilities api
17:13:37 <Josh_Soref> ... with hints we can say "in an ideal case, this is what i'd like"
17:13:42 <Josh_Soref> ... and the UA will try to match up
17:13:47 <Josh_Soref> ... and then fall back where it can't
17:13:56 <Josh_Soref> ... hints are a much more web model
17:13:59 <Josh_Soref> ... look at CSS
17:14:02 <Josh_Soref> ... you request something
17:14:07 <Josh_Soref> ... and if you don't get something, it will fall back
17:14:16 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm not so particular about audio/video
17:14:31 <Josh_Soref> ... I'd like to reverse from "we have capabilities" to saying "we have hints, do we need caps"
17:14:35 <Josh_Soref> ... on iframes
17:14:46 <Josh_Soref> ... we intend to do the same thing as Chrome
17:14:52 <shepazu> q+ to ask about implementation timeline
17:15:04 <Josh_Soref> ... create a pair, so that an iframe can only have access if there's a trusted chain to the top
17:15:15 <Josh_Soref> ... re EventListeners, there are some benefits
17:15:19 <Josh_Soref> ... to the current way
17:15:24 <Josh_Soref> ... but there are issues
17:15:30 <Josh_Soref> ... we may want to experiment
17:15:37 <Josh_Soref> ... the UI recommendations for browsers
17:15:41 <Josh_Soref> ... we've discussed this as well
17:15:49 <Josh_Soref> ... @TPAC, the Firefox/Mozilla guys
17:15:54 <Josh_Soref> ... anant demod
17:16:00 <Josh_Soref> ... the UI seems to be converging
17:16:09 <Josh_Soref> ... we may want to codify the challenge
17:16:19 <Josh_Soref> ... we may not want to lock things in
17:16:26 <Josh_Soref> ... i think that's about all i wanted to say
17:16:29 <Josh_Soref> ... one last thing...
17:16:32 <Travis> Opera's UI experiment for getUserMedia: http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/getusermedia-access-camera-privacy-ui/
17:16:33 <Josh_Soref> ... switching away from the application
17:16:44 <Josh_Soref> ... you may be able to pin a tab to give it that priv 
17:16:48 <Josh_Soref> ack fluffy 
17:16:54 <Josh_Soref> fluffy: hints/capabilities/iframes/perms
17:17:15 <Josh_Soref> ... on hints, we definitely wanted the ability to select the capture resolution
17:17:25 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm willing to look at a proposal without capabilities
17:17:34 <Josh_Soref> ... all applications are working in environments with multiple cameras
17:17:40 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm not sure how to deal with device selection
17:17:52 <dom> [device selection can be made via the browser chrome]
17:17:56 <Josh_Soref> ... i realize that whatever we do with capabilities will be 
17:18:04 <Josh_Soref> ... a huge fingerprinting
17:18:06 <Josh_Soref> ... issue
17:18:12 <Josh_Soref> ... but without turning off third party cookies
17:18:15 <Josh_Soref> ... the iframe issue
17:18:22 <Josh_Soref> ... historically iframes were supported
17:18:28 <Josh_Soref> ... e.g. iframes for ads
17:18:32 <Josh_Soref> ... but it's important for mashups
17:18:38 <Josh_Soref> ... i liked the opera proposal
17:18:41 <shepazu> +1 for importance of mashups
17:18:44 <Josh_Soref> ... i think it's important to be able to run in an iframe
17:18:52 <Josh_Soref> ... the issue w/ running in an iframe
17:18:58 <Josh_Soref> ... is you need to know who's getting the media
17:19:01 <stefanh> +1 for iframe's
17:19:10 <Josh_Soref> ... we had a long discussion at the interim WebRTC meeting
17:19:12 <shepazu> (might allow delegation and transparency, similar to CORS)
17:19:15 <Travis> +1 for iframe
17:19:29 <Josh_Soref> ... if you mark stream as No-JavaScript
17:19:39 <Josh_Soref> ... then only whomever is on the other side of the stream
17:19:51 <Josh_Soref> ... the important thing for Permissions is "who has access to the video"
17:20:00 <Josh_Soref> ... which isn't necessarily the web site
17:20:01 <Josh_Soref> q?
17:20:04 <Josh_Soref> ack hta 
17:20:12 <Josh_Soref> hta: [ removing chair hat ]
17:20:18 <shepazu> (once the stream goes to any server, that server might send it anywhere… some degree of trust must be there)
17:20:36 <Josh_Soref> ... I liked anant 's idea of going to a different model for getUserMedia
17:20:42 <Josh_Soref> ... I think we need a different name
17:21:03 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like to encourage anant to write up a better proposal with a different name closer to javascript style
17:21:07 <Josh_Soref> ... in previous discussions
17:21:09 <dom> shepazu, actually the protocol allows to make it so that the server doesn't get to see the stream at all; but it would probably need help from the API
17:21:20 <Josh_Soref> ... we had the idea of capabilities to turn around and feed them back in
17:21:29 <jesup> shepazu: for webrtc, often the stream is peer-2-peer, encrypted, never seen by server
17:21:32 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like to investigate that somewhere too
17:21:46 <Josh_Soref> ... we had pretty strong support for capabilities
17:21:53 <Josh_Soref> ... it isn't about going down the slippery slope
17:21:55 <Josh_Soref> ... but how far
17:21:56 <Josh_Soref> q?
17:22:01 <Josh_Soref> ack burn
17:22:05 <Josh_Soref> burn: +1
17:22:16 <Josh_Soref> ... i think there's a need for capabilities
17:22:16 <Josh_Soref> ack
17:22:28 <Josh_Soref> ... as i summarized at the beginning of the call
17:22:32 <Josh_Soref> q- Daniel_Burnett
17:22:34 <shepazu> (but is this only for WebRTC? for an audio-editing site, stream might be sent to host server)
17:22:43 <Travis> q+
17:22:48 <Josh_Soref> ... there are definitely cases like Presence for Dating sites
17:22:59 <Josh_Soref> ... first you're going to check capabilities
17:23:05 <Josh_Soref> ... check if devices are plugged in
17:23:19 <Josh_Soref> ... then you try to get access
17:23:24 <Josh_Soref> ... it may not be available "now"
17:23:28 <Josh_Soref> ... and that's entirely reasonable
17:23:33 <Josh_Soref> ... especially with competing applications
17:23:36 <jesup> shepazu: some uses it goes to server, some it doesn't.  And a user may want to record locally without exposing to the server
17:23:39 <Josh_Soref> ... w.r.t. hints
17:23:42 <Josh_Soref> ... my concern is that
17:23:53 <Josh_Soref> ... application authors like knowing what they're getting
17:24:04 <Josh_Soref> ... I understanding how HTML works today
17:24:09 <Josh_Soref> ... and CSS allows for fallbacks
17:24:18 <Josh_Soref> ... but i would argue that most web app authors do not find that a feature
17:24:21 <Josh_Soref> ... they consider it a bug
17:24:38 <Josh_Soref> ... they acknowledge it, but constantly push for more control
17:24:45 <Josh_Soref> ... when I was working on Voice XML
17:25:06 <Josh_Soref> ... people pointed out that HTML when it first came out was a step backward for Desktop Publishing
17:25:09 <Josh_Soref> ... but HTML has evolved
17:25:25 <Josh_Soref> ... and authors would do things like using Flash to get more of what they want
17:25:29 <Josh_Soref> ... what i'd like for hints
17:25:40 <Josh_Soref> ... is to specify "ideally i'd like this", "but these other things are acceptable"
17:25:50 <Josh_Soref> ... for video, maybe i care more about width than height
17:25:56 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe i care about aspect ratio
17:26:08 <Josh_Soref> ... if i can't get these characteristics, then i don't want anything
17:26:18 <Josh_Soref> xxy: I like that
17:26:25 <anant> s/xxy/richt
17:26:27 <Josh_Soref> ... hints for me aren't necessarily quality related
17:26:43 <Josh_Soref> ... looking at cameras, hints specify a preference for which camera
17:26:45 <jesup> shepazu: If I'm recording locally, I dont' want the app to be able to surreptitiously send a copy to the website (at least not unless I 'trust' them)
17:26:47 <Josh_Soref> ... the one i'd like
17:26:56 <Josh_Soref> q?
17:26:59 <dom> s/shepazu:/shepazu,/
17:27:10 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: as chair, we're running out of time
17:27:19 <Josh_Soref> ... personally i have a hard deadline
17:27:30 <Josh_Soref> shepazu: i have to go too
17:27:40 <Josh_Soref> [ Group agrees to move offline ]
17:27:50 <Josh_Soref> Travis: a response to hints/capabilities
17:27:57 <Josh_Soref> ... but i think this may be best served as a list discussion
17:28:01 <shepazu> s/ i have to go too/ I can take it to the list/
17:28:03 <Josh_Soref> ... and maybe proposals written down
17:28:10 <Travis> q-
17:28:15 <Josh_Soref> richt_: hints is privacy preserving
17:28:25 <Josh_Soref> ... you're requesting something, rather than knowing what happens
17:28:30 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm designing for the web case
17:28:39 <Josh_Soref> ... trusted fine, we can install/elevate
17:28:51 <Josh_Soref> ... but hints work much better in the untrusted environment
17:28:52 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: +1
17:29:06 <Travis> q+
17:29:08 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: we have to move this discussion offline
17:29:28 <Josh_Soref> Travis: i'd like to ask for another Teleconf
17:29:35 <Josh_Soref> ... and put out when we'd have it
17:29:38 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: yes
17:29:49 <Josh_Soref> xxz: and we'd want to do that before the March IETF meeting
17:29:52 <burn> agree with having new call
17:30:03 <shepazu> (jesup, agreed, but there are multiple scenarios to meet here)
17:30:03 <hta> s/xxz/hta/ (sorry)
17:30:04 <Josh_Soref> Travis: 2 weeks would be good
17:30:06 <dom> [please avoid overlap with Mobile World Congress if possible]
17:30:13 <Josh_Soref> s/ (sorry)//
17:30:15 <hta> dom, what are the MWC dates?
17:30:16 <anant> yes, lots of people at MWC
17:30:23 <dom> Feb 27-March 1st
17:30:27 <anant> 27th- feb 3rd march
17:30:28 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:30:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:31:01 <jesup> shepazu: See the meeting slides from the W3C WebRTC interim on MediaStream Security
17:31:02 <Josh_Soref> xya: EventListener
17:31:10 <dom> s/xya/anant/
17:31:12 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: anant had an action to write up a proposal
17:31:12 <dom> s/shepazu:/shepazu,/
17:31:37 <Josh_Soref> fluffy: burn and I have an action for capabilities
17:31:44 <Josh_Soref> ... one's easier and one's harder
17:31:50 <Josh_Soref> ... (goes in and comes out)
17:31:56 <Josh_Soref> ... anant : you and i should work on the first
17:32:08 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: the last action was Travis to update the draft
17:32:24 <Josh_Soref> ... and then the WebRTC/DAP chairs will send out CfC
17:32:34 <jesup> shepazu: hang out for a sec while I dig it out
17:33:24 <Josh_Soref> s/* What's the conf call code?//
17:33:41 <Zakim> -Doug_Schepers
17:33:42 <Zakim> -fjh
17:33:48 <Zakim> -richt_
17:33:54 <Josh_Soref> s|s/xxl/anant/||
17:33:58 <Zakim> -hta
17:33:58 <jesup> shepazu: http://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/wiki/images/a/a3/MediaStream_Security_1.pdf
17:34:01 <Zakim> -dom
17:34:02 <Zakim> -fluffy
17:34:02 <Zakim> -Daniel_Burnett
17:34:04 <Zakim> -stefanh
17:34:07 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
17:34:09 <Zakim> - +1.415.800.aaee
17:34:14 <Zakim> -Travis
17:34:22 <Josh_Soref> s|s/xxr/fluffy/||
17:34:24 <Zakim> -jesup
17:34:29 <shepazu> shepazu has left #webrtc
17:34:50 <Josh_Soref> s|fjh, who are you?||
17:35:01 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:35:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:35:23 <Josh_Soref> s|s/xxz/hta/ (sorry)||
17:35:28 <Josh_Soref> s/xxz/hta/
17:35:35 <Josh_Soref> s|s/ (sorry)//||
17:35:40 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:35:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:36:11 <Josh_Soref> s|s/* What's the conf call code?//||
17:39:25 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, Josh_Soref, in UW_MdCap()11:00AM
17:39:26 <Zakim> UW_MdCap()11:00AM has ended
17:39:26 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.403.244.aaaa, +46.7.34.27.aabb, fluffy, hta, Josh_Soref, Daniel_Burnett, dom, +46.1.07.14.aacc, +1.610.889.aadd, stefanh, +1.415.800.aaee, fjh, darobin?, darobin,
17:39:26 <Zakim> ... anant, +44.208.144.aaff, richt_, Travis, derf, jesup, Doug_Schepers
17:41:37 <fluffy> fluffy has left #webrtc
17:41:49 <richt_> fyi, geolocation permissions for iframes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011Feb/0001.html
17:43:37 <richt_> ...and we'll be fixing our behavior for geolocation in this respect in our next release.
18:01:26 <hta> hta has joined #webrtc
18:28:49 <hta> hta has joined #webrtc
18:32:14 <hta1> hta1 has joined #webrtc
18:32:48 <hta2> hta2 has joined #webrtc
18:33:58 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
18:33:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
18:34:24 <hta> hta has joined #webrtc
18:34:46 <Josh_Soref> trackbot, end meeting
18:34:46 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
18:34:46 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
18:34:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:34:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-webrtc-minutes.html trackbot
18:34:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
18:34:55 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-webrtc-actions.rdf :
18:34:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: fjh to send CfC to DAP re FPWD of Scenarios document upon Travis edit [1]
18:34:55 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/09-webrtc-irc#T16-53-05