16:03:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webrtc
16:03:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/02/28-webrtc-irc
16:03:15 <Zakim> + +46.1.07.14.aabb
16:03:32 <burn> zakim, aabb is Adam_Bergkvist
16:03:32 <Zakim> +Adam_Bergkvist; got it
16:04:05 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:04:05 <Josh_Soref> Scribe: Josh_Soref 
16:04:06 <adambe> adambe has joined #webrtc
16:04:19 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, [Microsoft] contains trackbot 
16:04:20 <Zakim> +trackbot; got it
16:04:35 <Zakim> +??P6
16:04:47 <Travis_MSFT> Travis_MSFT has joined #webrtc
16:04:49 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, [Microsoft] no longer contains trackbot 
16:04:49 <Zakim> -trackbot; got it
16:04:52 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, [Microsoft] contains Travis_MSFT 
16:04:52 <Zakim> +Travis_MSFT; got it
16:05:12 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Agenda
16:05:57 <Josh_Soref> Chairs: stefanh, Harald_Alvestrand
16:06:22 <Josh_Soref> Meeting: Media Capture Task Force teleconference
16:06:31 <Josh_Soref> s/stefanh/Stefan/
16:06:38 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Scenarios
16:06:58 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: Thank you to everyone who was able to review the document and provide feedback
16:07:00 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, mute me
16:07:00 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
16:07:14 <Josh_Soref> ... there was a request from the DAP WG to publish it as a FPWD
16:07:19 <Josh_Soref> ... that notice went out about a week ago
16:07:30 <Josh_Soref> ... darobin has volunteered to do the publishing work
16:07:38 <stefanh> there is the same request from the webrtc group 
16:07:47 <Josh_Soref> ... he was on vacation, and i believe he'll get it out some time this week
16:07:52 <Josh_Soref> burn: This is a document
16:08:06 <Josh_Soref> ... I understood that documents that aren't Specifications don't get FPWD
16:08:08 <Zakim> +??P7
16:08:12 <Josh_Soref> ... and instead get published as Notes
16:08:18 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: I had the same concern
16:08:27 <Josh_Soref> ... Initially I marked it up differently
16:08:30 <nstratford> Zakim, +??P7 is me
16:08:30 <Zakim> sorry, nstratford, I do not recognize a party named '+??P7'
16:08:33 <Josh_Soref> ... If you have an issue, let's talk about it
16:08:41 <Josh_Soref> burn: I agree it should be published
16:08:51 <Josh_Soref> ... I was just surprised to see FPWD for a non REC track document
16:08:57 <nstratford> Zakim, ??P7 is me
16:08:57 <Zakim> +nstratford; got it
16:09:15 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: I acted on darobin's suggestion of doing FPWD
16:09:24 <Josh_Soref> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/ -- Process Document
16:09:34 <Josh_Soref> burn: this is based on my 13 years of experience in W3C
16:09:41 <Josh_Soref> ... but darobin also has lots of experience in W3C
16:09:46 <Josh_Soref> ... I'll just talk with darobin
16:09:59 <adambe> stefan
16:10:05 <Josh_Soref> hta: I just want it to be pushed out
16:10:11 <Josh_Soref> s/hta/stefan/
16:10:21 <stefanh> s/stefan/stefanh/
16:10:35 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: the document hasn't changed significantly since I did the CfC
16:10:46 <Josh_Soref> ... Josh_Soref gave feedback but indicated it wasn't critical to FPWD
16:10:55 <Josh_Soref> ... If I have time, I may squeeze them in before publication
16:11:01 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: The next point, is on the next step
16:11:09 <Josh_Soref> ... is there any activity we can make to get more input
16:11:11 <Josh_Soref> q?
16:11:20 <Josh_Soref> q+ to note that FPWD is one way to get more input
16:11:24 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: I had a suggestion
16:11:37 <Josh_Soref> ... I know we originally proposed this document so we could unify on a set of scenarios and goals
16:11:40 <Josh_Soref> ... for this TF
16:11:52 <Josh_Soref> ... what we have today is a document that has a really good description of a high level usage scenario
16:11:59 <Josh_Soref> ... what I think the next steps for the document are
16:12:04 <Josh_Soref> ... is to use the scenarios we've agreed on
16:12:12 <Josh_Soref> ... to extract the functional requirements for the API
16:12:20 <Josh_Soref> ... I know we're focusing on getUserMedia()
16:12:38 <Josh_Soref> ... but next we should focus on the features that media streams will need
16:12:51 <Josh_Soref> ... does that sound reasonable?
16:12:55 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: does that sound reasonable?
16:13:10 <Josh_Soref> s/does that sound reasonable?/to me that sounds reasonable/
16:13:13 <Josh_Soref> adambe: I agree
16:13:28 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:13:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/28-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
16:13:44 <adambe> hta
16:13:54 <Josh_Soref> hta: Given that we aren't starting with a clean slate
16:14:03 <Josh_Soref> ... we'll want to aim for a non disruptive approach
16:14:09 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: i agree with that sentiment
16:14:12 <Josh_Soref> ... one approach we could take
16:14:26 <Josh_Soref> ... i could take an action item to attempt to draft some requirements
16:14:30 <Josh_Soref> ... and we could keep iterating
16:14:36 <Josh_Soref> hta: yes
16:14:46 <Josh_Soref> ... do you think you should write up a list that includes the WebRTC UCs?
16:14:52 <Josh_Soref> ... or anything in addition to those?
16:15:00 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: i think that's certainly worth a shot
16:15:12 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: I can certainly look into them again
16:15:22 <Josh_Soref> hta: it would be nice if we had a single list of requirements
16:15:26 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: i agree
16:15:51 <Josh_Soref> ACTION Travis_MSFT to Draft a setup of initial requirements based on the WebRTC and the Scenarios document
16:15:51 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Travis_MSFT
16:16:00 <Josh_Soref> ACTION Travis to Draft a setup of initial requirements based on the WebRTC and the Scenarios document
16:16:00 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Travis
16:16:10 <Josh_Soref> ACTION stefanh to action Travis to Draft a setup of initial requirements based on the WebRTC and the Scenarios document
16:16:10 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - stefanh
16:16:18 <Josh_Soref> ACTION hta to action Travis to Draft a setup of initial requirements based on the WebRTC and the Scenarios document
16:16:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-25 - Action Travis to Draft a setup of initial requirements based on the WebRTC and the Scenarios document [on Harald Alvestrand - due 2012-03-06].
16:16:27 <Josh_Soref> q?
16:16:28 <Josh_Soref> q-
16:16:36 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Capabilities/Constraints
16:16:54 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, unmute me
16:16:54 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should no longer be muted
16:17:39 <Josh_Soref> i/I had a suggestion/Josh_Soref: to note that FPWD is one way to get more input/
16:17:55 <burn> rrsagent, make logs public
16:18:22 <Josh_Soref> burn: Even though I suspect many people have read this document
16:18:27 <stefanh> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Feb/0041.html
16:18:34 <Josh_Soref> ... I think it would be helpful for me to go over this to make sure we're on the same page
16:18:38 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:18:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/28-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
16:18:51 <Josh_Soref> burn: my task was to come up with an API for capabilities
16:19:00 <Josh_Soref> ... Capabilities and Hints are fairly closely tied together
16:19:19 <Josh_Soref> ... I've always had that opinion, but I hadn't found a way to explain this
16:19:26 <Josh_Soref> ... I spoke with fluffy
16:19:37 <Josh_Soref> ... App Developer = Web Developer
16:19:46 <Josh_Soref> ... When a web developer says "i need a video of a certain size"
16:19:53 <Josh_Soref> ... When they're told "that's just a hint"
16:20:05 <Josh_Soref> ... that's frustrating for application authors
16:20:21 <Josh_Soref> ... we tried to design a way to make it workable for both the Browser (UA implementer)
16:20:24 <Josh_Soref> ... and the App Developer
16:20:34 <Josh_Soref> ... that amounts to Constraints
16:20:51 <Josh_Soref> ... the goal was to develop Constraints that we a way for a Web Developer to express what they'd like
16:20:57 <Josh_Soref> ... in a meaningful way to the browser
16:21:02 <Josh_Soref> ... but also a way to express preferences
16:21:12 <Josh_Soref> ... so if they couldn't get THIS, then try to get me THIS
16:21:26 <Josh_Soref> ... and also to provide a way for the Web Developer to specify a minimum
16:21:40 <Josh_Soref> ... the browser also needs to be able to handle Congestion on the Network
16:21:47 <Josh_Soref> ... or User resizing their screen
16:21:58 <Josh_Soref> ... it would be unfortunate for the browser to have to go back to the Application author
16:22:02 <Josh_Soref> ... and get a new answer
16:22:11 <Josh_Soref> ... we think that a Constraint structure satisfies these requirements
16:22:18 <Josh_Soref> ... I'm going to talk about this Constraint structure
16:22:36 <Josh_Soref> ... There's a possibility that we need to distinguish between Constraints for Peer connections
16:22:51 <Josh_Soref> ... and Constraints for just getting media in the first place (not using a Peer connection)
16:23:00 <Josh_Soref> ... I believe that this design can work for both
16:23:14 <Josh_Soref> ... but we may need some things to make the different cases easier
16:23:21 <Josh_Soref> ... With respect to the Constraint API
16:23:29 <Josh_Soref> ... I don't think there's much to an API beyond an API for hints
16:23:45 <Josh_Soref> ... I suggest that it should be in the place where we discussed hints
16:23:56 <Josh_Soref> ... I propose that we use an ordered list of Key-Value-Pair
16:24:02 <Josh_Soref> ... approximately Key-Value-Pair
16:24:11 <Josh_Soref> ... for "is it mandatory" -- we'll talk about that later
16:24:24 <Josh_Soref> ... You specify with a priority, a specific constraint
16:24:28 <Josh_Soref> ... Skip past XXX
16:24:32 <Josh_Soref> ... in the email
16:24:39 <Josh_Soref> ... you'll see that I have a JSON list here
16:24:46 <Josh_Soref> ... with 0...5 keys, those are priority orderings
16:24:53 <Josh_Soref> ... 0 is the highest priority
16:25:05 <Josh_Soref> ... there are priority numberings, and then specific constraints
16:25:25 <Josh_Soref> Example:
16:25:25 <Josh_Soref>  {0:{video-min-height:600, mandatory:true},
16:25:25 <Josh_Soref>   1:{video-max-aspectratio:1.333333333333},
16:25:25 <Josh_Soref>   2:{video-min-timebetweenrefframes:20},
16:25:25 <Josh_Soref>   3:{video-max-bandwidth:500, mandatory:true},
16:25:25 <Josh_Soref>   4:{video-min-framerate:30},
16:25:27 <Josh_Soref>   5:(video-autowhitebalance:on}}
16:25:33 <Josh_Soref> [ burn explains the Example ]
16:25:43 <Josh_Soref> burn: I'm specifying a minimum height of 600 pixels
16:25:57 <Cathy> Cathy has joined #webrtc
16:25:58 <Josh_Soref> ... a browser will if it has to choose between an aspect ratio or a height constraint
16:26:18 <Josh_Soref> ... i've indicated that I've preferred that it meet the height constraint (because the priority is higher)
16:26:40 <Josh_Soref> ... I've also indicated a mandatory flag on some constraints
16:26:55 <Josh_Soref> ... for my application, i don't want to start without that minimum height and that maximum bandwidth
16:27:04 <Josh_Soref> ... i want an error from the browser instead
16:27:11 <Josh_Soref> ... indicating which couldn't be satisfied
16:27:15 <Josh_Soref> ... Before I continue
16:27:22 <Josh_Soref> ... are there any questions?
16:27:30 <Josh_Soref> adambe: I have a question about Mandatory
16:27:42 <Josh_Soref> ... there's a Mandatory at position 0 and a Mandatory at position 3
16:27:57 <Josh_Soref> ... how does it relate to the optional item at position 1?
16:28:00 <Josh_Soref> burn: that's correct
16:28:13 <Josh_Soref> ... because i don't think bandwidth relates to aspect ratio
16:28:22 <Josh_Soref> ... I think a more interesting thing is between 2 and 3
16:28:30 <Josh_Soref> adambe: XX2
16:28:45 <Josh_Soref> burn: the priority ordering is to be used to resolve conflicts between constraints
16:28:52 <Josh_Soref> ... there's likely a conflict between height and aspect-ratio
16:29:09 <Josh_Soref> ... I think you're asking why not list mandatory before optional
16:29:26 <Josh_Soref> ... I could as an application author put them with 1 and 2 after 3
16:29:31 <Josh_Soref> ... but i don't really care
16:29:36 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: it might be interesting
16:29:47 <Josh_Soref> ... to talk through an algorithm for evaluating the examples
16:29:51 <Josh_Soref> s/examples/example/
16:29:58 <Josh_Soref> burn: I'll talk about it loosely
16:30:02 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't have it written out
16:30:09 <Josh_Soref> ... please don't hold me to being a computer
16:30:14 <Josh_Soref> ... approximately speaking
16:30:19 <Josh_Soref> ... as an implementer, reading through this
16:30:27 <Josh_Soref> ... you would attempt to satisfy every constraint
16:30:36 <Josh_Soref> ... starting with the lowest number (highest priority)
16:30:41 <Josh_Soref> ... if you satisfy it, you move on
16:30:53 <Josh_Soref> ... if you don't satisfy it, and it's marked as mandatory, you must fail
16:31:31 <Josh_Soref> burn: out of all the possible video resolutions i can choose
16:31:47 <Josh_Soref> ... i am able to choose one that can satisfy this constraint
16:31:56 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, mute me
16:31:56 <Zakim> Josh_Soref should now be muted
16:32:02 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: you might look at your available video formats
16:32:11 <Josh_Soref> ... and you'd narrow things down
16:32:19 <fluffy> fluffy has joined #webrtc
16:32:25 <Josh_Soref> ... you'd present to the user
16:32:28 <Josh_Soref> ... or fail if you run out of things
16:32:35 <Zakim> +fluffy
16:32:39 <Josh_Soref> terry: Terry, From Mozilla
16:32:49 <Josh_Soref> ... you might be able to satisfy each in isolation
16:32:52 <Josh_Soref> ... but not in combination
16:32:59 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, who is on?
16:32:59 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, Josh_Soref.
16:33:04 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, who is on the call?
16:33:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Harald_Alvestrand, Dan_Burnett, Josh_Soref (muted), [Mozilla], stefanh, Adam_Bergkvist, [Microsoft], ??P6, nstratford, fluffy
16:33:07 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has Travis_MSFT
16:33:14 <derf> s/Terry/Tim Terriberry/
16:33:23 <Josh_Soref> burn: for all the ones I marked as mandatory, i need them
16:33:40 <Josh_Soref> ... if i could satisfy min-height or max-bandwidth, but not both
16:33:45 <Josh_Soref> ... we could talk about that
16:33:52 <Josh_Soref> ... but i'd like to talk about that later
16:34:02 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, [Mozilla] has Tim_Terriberry
16:34:02 <Zakim> +Tim_Terriberry; got it
16:34:22 <Josh_Soref> burn: Tim_Terriberry, is it ok if we note that and come back to it?
16:34:37 <Josh_Soref> terry: that's fine
16:34:43 <Josh_Soref> burn: as you're narrowing
16:34:51 <Josh_Soref> ... if the constraint you're processing leaves you with the empty set
16:34:57 <Josh_Soref> ... and that constraint was not mandatory
16:35:12 <Josh_Soref> ... then i think the process should undo that constraint and move on to the next step
16:35:19 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: because it isn't a mandatory constraint
16:35:28 <Josh_Soref> ... there isn't a need to satisfy that particular constraint
16:35:33 <Josh_Soref> ... and you continue processing
16:35:41 <Josh_Soref> burn: and the ones that are higher priority matter more
16:35:54 <Josh_Soref> burn: we should say that the algorithm processes these in priority order
16:36:29 <Josh_Soref> XX3: you're going to run into the problem of a conflict between a priority order optional constraint
16:36:33 <Josh_Soref> ... and a mandatory constraint
16:36:42 <Josh_Soref> fluffy: I think you want to do mandatory constraints first
16:36:43 <tim> Zakim, ??P6 is me
16:36:43 <Zakim> +tim; got it
16:36:58 <Josh_Soref> XX4: I think fluffy 's suggestion makes more sense than burn 's
16:37:01 <Josh_Soref> burn: I'm fine with that
16:37:14 <Josh_Soref> ... when I proposed this approach
16:37:24 <Josh_Soref> ... it was based on SSML 1.0
16:37:37 <Zakim> -nstratford
16:37:54 <Josh_Soref> ... when we discussed this, we didn't discuss this very in detail
16:38:05 <Josh_Soref> ... we may be able to change the structure
16:38:12 <Josh_Soref> ... all mandatory before optional
16:38:23 <Josh_Soref> adambe: [...]
16:38:38 <Josh_Soref> burn: I wanted to do clarifying questions first
16:38:50 <Josh_Soref> XX5: we can design the algorithm down the road
16:39:04 <Josh_Soref> burn: Travis_MSFT was trying to talk through an algorithm to understand what we're doing
16:39:08 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: and that's been met
16:39:17 <Josh_Soref> burn: are there any other clarifying questions about constraints?
16:39:19 <Josh_Soref> [ none ]
16:39:28 <Josh_Soref> burn: ok, then let's go on to the capabilities
16:39:42 <Josh_Soref> ... a call to getCapabilities()
16:40:05 <Josh_Soref> ... this was supposed to be focusing on the Fully Trusted case
16:40:11 <Zakim> +??P7
16:40:12 <Josh_Soref> ... that's what anant was talking about in the previous call
16:40:27 <Josh_Soref> ... i didn't attempt at all to even attempt to describe things for the less trusted case
16:40:42 <nstratford> Zakim, ??P7 is me
16:40:42 <Zakim> +nstratford; got it
16:40:45 <Josh_Soref> ... it returns a JS Array for each device/media stream/channel
16:40:52 <Josh_Soref> ... we may need to figure out how to describe that
16:40:56 <Josh_Soref> ... for now i put it per device
16:41:05 <Josh_Soref> ... for each device, it's going to list all of the relevant constraints
16:41:12 <Josh_Soref> ... but they're the constraints for the device
16:41:30 <Josh_Soref> ... camera 1 has no resolution less than 800
16:41:38 <Josh_Soref> ... no smaller resolution than 600
16:41:39 <Josh_Soref> q+
16:41:51 <Josh_Soref> ... similarly for camera 2
16:42:01 <Josh_Soref> adambe: his is specific constraints
16:42:05 <Josh_Soref> ... this is not a profile
16:42:10 <Josh_Soref> ... you can't expect all of these to work together
16:42:14 <Josh_Soref> burn: correct
16:42:28 <Josh_Soref> ... it doesn't mean that 800x600 is a valid resolution
16:42:33 <Josh_Soref> ... and i did this on purpose
16:42:51 <Josh_Soref> ... for camera 2, i intentionally picked values where with and height don't match up
16:43:00 <Josh_Soref> ... you're likely to get 1920x1080
16:43:06 <Josh_Soref> ... or 1600x1200
16:43:10 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: i like this
16:43:32 <Josh_Soref> ... you've anonymized the camera names
16:43:44 <Josh_Soref> ... and you've forced the authors to decide what the want
16:43:48 <Josh_Soref> burn: that was the intent
16:44:19 <Josh_Soref> ... for your application, you know what's important
16:44:36 <Josh_Soref> ... you may want a maximum,... if you're doing a thumbnail, you may not want something 2000px wide
16:44:50 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: there are no units here
16:44:57 <Josh_Soref> ... is that because each thing has a defined unit?
16:45:03 <Josh_Soref> burn: if you scroll up in the email
16:45:08 <Josh_Soref> ... for every constraint, i give a unit
16:45:12 <Josh_Soref> ... i had us skip over that
16:45:21 <Josh_Soref> ... but i think it's extremely important to specify the unit
16:45:50 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: can you give an example of XX7
16:46:06 <Josh_Soref> burn: possibly someone may want width in display centimeters instead of px
16:46:14 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: which they could figure out on their own
16:46:22 <Josh_Soref> burn: we tried not to go overboard on a list of constraints
16:46:29 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm not even saying this is the initial set
16:46:42 <Josh_Soref> ... i knew if i didn't come up with a reasonable number of example constraints
16:46:46 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd get yelled at
16:46:50 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: i'm not proposing
16:47:01 <Josh_Soref> ... i like having unitless when i get data back
16:47:06 <Josh_Soref> ... because my code will do math on it
16:47:20 <Josh_Soref> fluffy: I have a hard time thinking of an example
16:47:30 <Josh_Soref> ... say you wanted both px and cm
16:47:38 <Josh_Soref> ... we could just add a new constraint width-in-cm
16:48:04 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: should we plan ahead and call it video-min-width-px
16:48:14 <Josh_Soref> s/XX7/wanting different units for a given field/
16:48:22 <Josh_Soref> burn: i don't think we need to focus on that now
16:48:34 <Josh_Soref> ... are there any other clarification questions at this point?
16:48:35 <Josh_Soref> q?
16:48:48 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: the getCapabilities() is that a call that can be called at any time
16:49:00 <Josh_Soref> burn: I tihnk that question is orthogonal to this discussion
16:49:08 <Josh_Soref> s/tihnk/think/
16:49:20 <Josh_Soref> ... it's important, but i purposefully left that out of this discussion
16:49:32 <Josh_Soref> ... there are other people better suited for discussing thta
16:49:35 <Josh_Soref> s/thta/that/
16:49:51 <Josh_Soref> ... there may be something for working out the reduced privilege case
16:49:59 <Josh_Soref> ... and that's something we can work out later
16:50:02 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: i agree with that
16:50:09 <Josh_Soref> ... in my opinion, it sounds very reasonable
16:50:24 <Josh_Soref> ... and it seems that we could adapt for a Non-Trusted Environment
16:50:28 <Josh_Soref> q
16:50:30 <Josh_Soref> s/q//
16:50:31 <Josh_Soref> q?
16:50:36 <Josh_Soref> Zakim: ack me
16:50:41 <Josh_Soref> s/Zakim: ack me//
16:50:43 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, ack me
16:50:43 <Zakim> unmuting Josh_Soref
16:50:44 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
16:51:49 <stefanh> josh: are we ok with the ua scaling/padding out?
16:51:57 <Josh_Soref> tim: my answer would be no
16:52:04 <Josh_Soref> ... the QT apis that Apple have
16:52:14 <Josh_Soref> ... if you ask for a particular resolution
16:52:22 <Josh_Soref> ... it will give you something
16:52:26 <Josh_Soref> ... and there's no way to shut this off
16:52:38 <Josh_Soref> ... i think it's a terrible thing from an app developer's perspective
16:53:37 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: i'm holding a BlackBerry device
16:53:49 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm browsing a min-video-width of an hd size
16:53:57 <Josh_Soref> ... the hardware on my device can't stream that
16:54:08 <Josh_Soref> ... it's doing a disservice to the user
16:54:15 <Josh_Soref> ... because the UA follows the letter of the law
16:54:34 <tim> I think the answer is different for manditory vs no manditory constraints.
16:54:55 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm ok with the UA doing things differently
16:55:05 <Josh_Soref> adambe: i think web developers will use these constraints cautiously
16:55:13 <Josh_Soref> ... because they will lock people out of their services
16:55:14 <fluffy> q?
16:55:30 <tim> q+
16:55:43 <stefanh> josh: you're being way overoptimistic
16:55:45 <Josh_Soref> fluffy: can you give us a specific case for lying?
16:55:46 <tim> q-
16:58:19 <Josh_Soref> xx8: xx9
16:58:28 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: the case you described as a downgrade of constraints
16:58:34 <Josh_Soref> ... willfully violating the minimum constraints
16:58:41 <stefanh> fluffy: i don't know how to design a browser that second guesses
16:58:42 <Josh_Soref> ... are there cases of wanting to violate the maximum constraints?
16:58:47 <tim> q+
16:59:05 <Josh_Soref> tim: for example downgrading from hd to thumbnail is certainly possible
16:59:16 <Josh_Soref> ... but there's often a serious case of performance impact
16:59:25 <tim> We really need to be clear if these are manditory constrainst we are atalking about.
16:59:27 <Josh_Soref> ... the app needs to know about that
16:59:42 <Josh_Soref> ... in principle, i don't have a problem with the UA lying on behalf of the User
16:59:54 <Josh_Soref> ... i can certainly see sticking a pref somewhere for an expert user
17:00:03 <Josh_Soref> ... in practice, i don't think the pref will be flipped
17:00:12 <Josh_Soref> burn: i think in the small mobile device
17:00:23 <Josh_Soref> ... the browser will lie when it thinks it's in the best interest of the User
17:00:27 <Josh_Soref> ... and that's fine
17:00:42 <Josh_Soref> ... i've chosen to use a version of Safari on my iPhone with this little screen
17:01:00 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: there's often an option on mobile devices to "browse the mobile web" or "browse the desktop web"
17:01:04 <Josh_Soref> ... it's essentially lying
17:01:07 <Josh_Soref> burn: and that's right
17:01:12 <fjh> fjh has joined #webrtc
17:01:29 <Josh_Soref> ... there are definitely times when i want to scroll the screen for the features
17:01:34 <Josh_Soref> fluffy: i don't consider that lying
17:01:38 <Josh_Soref> [ PC explanation ]
17:01:52 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:02:02 <tim> Me
17:02:04 <fjh> zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:02:04 <Zakim> +fjh; got it
17:02:12 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
17:02:13 <Josh_Soref> [ SCRIBE WILL HAVE TO FIX MINUTES ]
17:02:24 <hta> tim = tim panton
17:02:30 <hta> derf = tim terriberry
17:02:33 <hta> just for the record :-)
17:02:36 <Josh_Soref> tim: about mandatory, or non mandatory constraints, in the context of the UA lying
17:02:47 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't have an opinion
17:02:57 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: in context of that discussion, i wasn't limiting my discussion to either case
17:03:10 <Josh_Soref> ... given the API in the proposal, any constraint can become a mandatory constraint
17:03:11 <fjh> zakim, who is here?
17:03:11 <Zakim> On the phone I see Harald_Alvestrand, Dan_Burnett, Josh_Soref, [Mozilla], stefanh, Adam_Bergkvist, [Microsoft], tim, fluffy, nstratford, fjh
17:03:14 <Zakim> [Microsoft] has Travis_MSFT
17:03:14 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has Tim_Terriberry
17:03:14 <Zakim> On IRC I see fjh, Cathy, Travis_MSFT, adambe, RRSAgent, stefanh, Zakim, burn, nstratford, hta, tim, Josh_Soref, ed, derf, rektide, trackbot, dom
17:03:17 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
17:03:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/28-webrtc-minutes.html fjh
17:03:29 <Josh_Soref> ... whichever constraint the UA may choose to deceive the application
17:03:34 <Josh_Soref> ... it could apply to any of them
17:03:44 <Josh_Soref> tim: i have a feeling there is a difference, but i'm not sure what it is
17:03:52 <Josh_Soref> ... i have a feeling it's worse to lie about a mandatory constraint
17:03:55 <Josh_Soref> ... but i can't justify that
17:04:11 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: the good news from this discussion is that there's tacit agreement that this is a good idea
17:04:16 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: which this
17:04:28 <Josh_Soref> burn: is there anyone who doesn't like this general approach?
17:04:36 <Josh_Soref> hta: i like this approach
17:04:40 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: i also like it
17:05:01 <Josh_Soref> ... i second the notion that there may be a set of constraints which are different between getUserMedia() and Peer
17:05:11 <Josh_Soref> ... possibly with considerable overlap
17:05:25 <Josh_Soref> ... I like the idea of keeping the list of constraints in a single place
17:05:30 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: there seems to be support for this
17:05:41 <Josh_Soref> ... burn: how do you propose that we move forward?
17:05:53 <Josh_Soref> burn: the next step is to rewrite this to address the mandatory-optional structure
17:06:01 <Josh_Soref> q+ negative values for mandatory? :)
17:06:10 <Josh_Soref> q+ to suggest negative values for mandatory? :)
17:06:16 <Josh_Soref> ack tim
17:06:17 <Zakim> -nstratford
17:06:37 <Josh_Soref> burn: then we need to split out the constraints and design a document for IANA to make the registry
17:06:50 <tim> q?
17:06:52 <Josh_Soref> ... go ahead and create a registry
17:06:56 <Josh_Soref> ack me
17:06:56 <Zakim> Josh_Soref, you wanted to suggest negative values for mandatory? :)
17:07:27 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: the simplest approach for splitting mandatory from optional is to move the mandatory to the negative space (you're currently 0 based)
17:07:45 <Josh_Soref> adambe: i think that you don't need the numbering
17:07:54 <Josh_Soref> burn: I think for mandatory, i don't think you need a priority ordering
17:08:00 <Josh_Soref> ... either they're all satisfied, or they aren't
17:08:08 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't like explicit numbers either
17:08:30 <Josh_Soref> ... when you look at JS arrays, they're really lists with lengths
17:08:44 <Josh_Soref> adambe: you actually used an Object not an Array...
17:09:13 <Josh_Soref> ... you can use an object with a list
17:09:19 <Josh_Soref> burn: I showed it as an object
17:09:26 <Josh_Soref> ... it would be better to show it in list notation
17:09:34 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: a List in JS gives you indices for free
17:09:37 <Josh_Soref> burn: ...
17:09:55 <Josh_Soref> ... I had object in my head because i was trying to figure out how to squeeze Mandatory in there
17:10:00 <Zakim> +??P7
17:10:04 <Josh_Soref> ... We can create two list
17:10:12 <Josh_Soref> fluffy: I like two lists
17:10:22 <Josh_Soref> ... on mandatory needing to be ordered
17:10:30 <Josh_Soref> ... say you ask for X and not X
17:10:36 <Josh_Soref> ... as mandatory
17:10:40 <Josh_Soref> ... obviously you get an error
17:10:58 <nstratford> Zakim, ??P7 is me, calling from a WebRTC enabled browser, hence the coming and going
17:10:58 <Zakim> I don't understand you, nstratford
17:11:01 <Josh_Soref> ... if we define an error as listing everything you haven't met
17:11:07 <nstratford> Zakim, ??P7 is me
17:11:07 <Zakim> +nstratford; got it
17:11:33 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: in the current syntax, you have to do Mandatory: true
17:11:39 <Josh_Soref> ... which makes it explicit that it's mandatory
17:11:53 <Josh_Soref> ... if you have two pure lists, it's hard to see which is the mandatory list
17:12:06 <Josh_Soref> adambe: { mandatory: [...], optional: [...]}
17:12:44 <Josh_Soref> hta: you could use [....,mandatory-above-this-line,....]
17:12:47 <Josh_Soref> burn: i'd rather two lists
17:12:53 <Josh_Soref> ... it's easier to process
17:12:58 <Josh_Soref> ... if you look through mandatory
17:13:01 <Josh_Soref> ... and then optional
17:13:13 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: if you don't have mandatory constraints, you don't need to specify that list
17:13:24 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: maybe we could leave the details later
17:13:37 <Josh_Soref> ... was there a decision to move forward?
17:13:41 <Josh_Soref> ... i think so
17:13:47 <Josh_Soref> burn: one thing that isn't clear is...
17:13:51 <Josh_Soref> ... where the definition should go
17:14:11 <Josh_Soref> burn: there's a registry that will define constraints
17:14:18 <Josh_Soref> ... but that isn't defining what a constraint structure is
17:14:24 <Josh_Soref> ... as used in getUserMedia/....
17:14:39 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: i'd propose we put the Algorithm and what we've defined here into the getUserMedia spec
17:14:43 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: I agree
17:14:53 <Josh_Soref> burn: i'm fine with that
17:15:01 <Josh_Soref> ... i just want to define it in one place
17:15:08 <Josh_Soref> ... and reference it from everywhere else
17:15:17 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: getUserMedia or another deliverable
17:15:28 <Josh_Soref> ... (getUserMedia doesn't cover Peer)
17:15:39 <Josh_Soref> adambe: now we're specifying the case
17:15:48 <Josh_Soref> ... where you're a developer fiddling around with all the settings
17:15:56 <Josh_Soref> ... should we also have comments about defaults?
17:16:14 <Josh_Soref> ... i had a comment before about developers not using this because they'd be locking people out
17:16:24 <Josh_Soref> burn: to me, if you don't ask for anything, the browser can do anything
17:16:42 <Josh_Soref> fluffy: i think it'd be better to specify defaults
17:16:52 <Josh_Soref> ... video specify is it using the largest/smallest?
17:17:02 <Josh_Soref> ... audio is easier to pick defaults
17:17:20 <Josh_Soref> adambe: i think defaults should be good
17:17:30 <Josh_Soref> ... you should need a reason to not use defaults
17:17:49 <fluffy> fluffy has joined #webrtc
17:17:50 <Josh_Soref> burn: my silence is agreement
17:18:02 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't have a problem with the group discussing it after i put a basic framework in place
17:18:04 <Josh_Soref> hta: that works for me
17:18:19 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: thinking ahead
17:18:33 <Josh_Soref> ... this general system seems like it would work great for recording different media streams
17:18:42 <Josh_Soref> ... i think this is heading in the right direction
17:19:00 <Josh_Soref> ACTION burn to flesh this out
17:19:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-26 - Flesh this out [on Daniel Burnett - due 2012-03-06].
17:19:25 <Josh_Soref> ACTION burn to work to create a draft with fluffy to create an IANA registry
17:19:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-27 - Work to create a draft with fluffy to create an IANA registry [on Daniel Burnett - due 2012-03-06].
17:19:38 <Josh_Soref> burn: the registry can be created empty
17:19:50 <Josh_Soref> ... and we can discuss in W3C later filling it out
17:19:55 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: i'm also an available resource
17:20:01 <Josh_Soref> burn: i may take you up on that
17:20:11 <Josh_Soref> ... in talking with fluffy, the draft 0 deadline is Monday
17:20:39 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:20:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/28-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
17:20:50 <Josh_Soref> burn: because of that, i may need to focus on the Registry first
17:21:13 <Josh_Soref> ... don't panic if i don't get the other part done next week
17:21:17 <Josh_Soref> Topic: AOB
17:21:37 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: when should we have the next call?
17:22:32 <Josh_Soref> DAP has a F2F Mar 19-23
17:22:52 <Josh_Soref> WebApps has a F2F Apr 9-13
17:23:11 <Josh_Soref> IETF has a Meeting Mar 25-30
17:24:25 <Josh_Soref> burn: We need to do it after the IETF meeting, and we'll need a doodle
17:24:45 <Josh_Soref> ACTION hta to create a doodle for the next meeting
17:24:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-28 - Create a doodle for the next meeting [on Harald Alvestrand - due 2012-03-06].
17:24:48 <hta> April 4-9 is Easter week.
17:25:04 <Josh_Soref> [ Apr 9-13 is Passover too ]
17:25:26 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: I will be leaning on Anant after MWC
17:25:54 <Josh_Soref> MWC is Feb 27-Mar 1
17:26:32 <Josh_Soref> burn: if anant can get something together in the next week, then we could have a productive call in 2 weeks
17:26:40 <Josh_Soref> ... otherwise we need to wait until after IETF
17:26:45 <Josh_Soref> ... and we can coordinate that by email
17:27:05 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: thanks everyone for great input
17:27:11 <Josh_Soref> ... and thanks to Josh_Soref for scribiing
17:27:17 <Josh_Soref> s/scribiing/scribing/
17:27:22 <Josh_Soref> Travis_MSFT: great discussion
17:27:22 <tim> tim has left #webrtc
17:27:23 <Zakim> -fjh
17:27:25 <Zakim> -fluffy
17:27:25 <Zakim> -Harald_Alvestrand
17:27:26 <Josh_Soref> [ adjourned ]
17:27:27 <Zakim> -tim
17:27:27 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
17:27:29 <Zakim> -Adam_Bergkvist
17:27:29 <Zakim> -Dan_Burnett
17:27:30 <Zakim> -nstratford
17:27:30 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
17:27:33 <Zakim> -stefanh
17:27:42 <Josh_Soref> trackbot, end meeting
17:27:42 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:27:42 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +47.41.44.aaaa, Dan_Burnett, Josh_Soref, Harald_Alvestrand, stefanh, +46.1.07.14.aabb, Adam_Bergkvist, trackbot, Travis_MSFT, nstratford,
17:27:46 <Zakim> ... fluffy, Tim_Terriberry, tim, fjh
17:27:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:27:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/02/28-webrtc-minutes.html trackbot
17:27:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:27:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items