See also: IRC log
Clarke: HTML WG meets after this
... Will try to resolve where work gets done
... Our charter provides fb on APIs regardless of where work gets done on content protection
RRSAgent scribe Russell Berkoff
Clarke: Next item - discussion of
req document for content prot
... Create skeleton
<kaz> MPTF dashboard page
Clarke: See home network TF document
Clarke: Front pg on dash board -
Things for content protection
... Discuss requirements for Content Prot
... Critique ones listed currently (requirements)
... MPTF taks no position on users, owners and SPs
... For content protection
Glenn: Change "contract" to "legal agreement (e.g., contract)"
Clarke: Obj for MPTF is to
provide terms for those agreements
... Concentrate on technical solutions for techical issues
... System Will not guarantee misues of content per Content Protection contract
Bob: Goal to meet Content Protection agreements
Jason: Requirements may vary greatly
Bob: Need to address union of Content Protection requirements
Clarke: Range of agreements between parties
Jason: Should include background info in Content Protection doc on MPTF page
Clarke: 2nd bullet - Content
protection must specify rights in Content Protection
... Various parties in CP agreements
... Working through rights for parties
Joe: CP protection must be implementable in open browsers?
Clarke: Change requirement to should (from must)
<glenn> may be difficult to define "open browser"
Clarke: CP system must not
advantage one method over another
... DTCP vs IP
Jason: Agnostic to CP
... We're not providing CP system
Jason: APIs should not advantage one particular method
Clarke: Should have baseline method
Jason: Why make baseline method
... Clear-key is mandatory method
Joe: we should have a mandatory method, whether or not paid SPs will use it
Clarke: Additional comment on baseline method?
MarkW: Change required to
... Unwise to mandate method
Clarke: Change to should?
MarkW: OpenSource implementation a requirement?
Clarke: May want to consider later?
mav: CP solutions must work with OpenSource browsers?
MarkW: Don't need whole system implementable in OpenSource browsers
<glenn> in other words, the basic mechanism should be implementable in O/S, but specific CDM implementations may not be implementable, due to technical or licensing reasons
Clarke: Changed wording CP methods miust work with OpenSource browsers (vs implementable in)
mav: Must address HTML5 features
Clarke: CP must be usable in
... Must be usable w/TimedTracks etc
Jason: Must or Should?
?: Feature should be covered by CP when available
acolwell: Copying to Canvas disable for protected content?
<glenn> need to distinguish between features available during encryption vs features available during copy protection/drm regime; they may be different
Clarke: Other discussion?
... Added link for Adaptive Bit Rate
... Aaron joined us today from Google
Aaron: Working with MarkW
Clarke: Closing meeting
... See folks on HTML5 call