16:23:48 RRSAgent has joined #webtv 16:23:48 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-webtv-irc 16:23:56 -Mark_Watson 16:24:09 ... on the linkage to the CDM, implementations of CDM interfaces may relate to IPR but a plugin CDM architecture is a separate thing 16:24:29 topic: requirements on dashbard page 16:24:44 +Mark_Watson 16:24:51 clarke: now to dashboard reqs and content protection proposal 16:25:03 Media task force proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0275.html 16:25:12 -> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF Dashboard page 16:25:53 -> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF#Content_Protection Content Protection topic 16:25:53 ... "Content protection methods must enable the rights of the user as specified in the agreement. " 16:26:07 to clarify my comments: disclosure rules apply to members of a WG; if work is done in a separate (e.g., new) WG, then the members may be different that HTTML WG members; this could alleviate objections by current HTML WG members who may not be willing to agree to disclosure rules if work is done in HTML WG 16:26:08 ... from the wiki http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF 16:26:08 s/... /clarke: / 16:26:35 clarke: anyone disagree that the proposal supports that requirement? 16:26:43 -Juhani 16:26:56 zakim, who is speaking? 16:27:05 ... note that there was no statement that the requirement is not fulfillled 16:27:07 kaz, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: glenn (43%), Clarke (51%) 16:27:12 mark has joined #webtv 16:27:17 glenn: clarify the term "user" in the requirement? 16:27:54 clarke: that means the end user (consumer) of the content. 16:28:37 clarke: background to this requirement is "The Media Pipeline Task Force takes no position on the specifics of legal agreement between users, content owners and content distibution service providers (the agreement). The objective of the MPTF regarding content protection is to provide the technical tools to enable the terms of those agreements. " 16:29:25 s/distibution/distribution/ 16:29:33 clarke: there are rights of the content owner, then there are agreeements with content distribution services on how it must be protected, and then agreements that users make when they consume that content 16:29:57 ... they can be complex and beyond the scope of this group. but the suggestion is that the "agreement" refers to all of those 16:30:06 ... we should enable the agreements to be fulfilled 16:30:32 s/group./group,/ 16:30:38 glenn: seriously suggest rewording the phrase re "rights of the user" - that may be taken too broadly 16:30:56 could someone repost the link with the material we're discussing ? 16:31:09 clarke: clarifying the intent, the user has the rights to use the content as legally specified by the service 16:32:06 I have to leave early for another call. 16:32:11 ... there may be other unspecified rights beyond use, e.g. copying and redistribution within some realm - maybe those rights do exist, but not explicitly through the service 16:32:16 -Mark_Vickers 16:32:30 ... we should not try to address legals issues directly but should be respective of them 16:33:12 glenn: just concerned that the statement of rights will overshadow the role of the agreement 16:33:24 clarke: will take action to edit the phrase 16:33:42 ... the next requirement "Content protection methods must protect the rights of the content owners as specified in the agreement. " 16:34:00 ... assume the same concerns may exist for that as well 16:34:16 yes 16:34:20 ...anyone else have any comments? 16:34:30 ... (no one disagreed) 16:34:34 yes, same concerns exist 16:34:45 joesteele: please number the requirements 16:35:28 clarke: requirement "3. Content protection methods must protect the rights of the distribution service provider as specified in the agreement. " 16:36:23 ... IMO the proposal does try to protect the rights of those 3 groups... is there any party left out there, and any concern on the proposal fulfilling those requirements? 16:36:29 ... (no objections) 16:36:43 ... the req "4. The content protection system must not advantage one specific method over another. " 16:37:16 ... this has some of the same wording weaknesses, e.g. "advantage", so I will clarify 16:37:39 .. e.g. any CDN advantage over another would not be in the spirit of the proposal 16:38:02 bryan: suggest to add that clarification as an example 16:38:40 notes that Paul Cotton (HTML WG chair) as posted "ACTION-209: Set up an encrypted media proposal task force" 16:38:40 clarke: yes, as the goal that a new CDN vendor should not be restricted from adding their CDN to this infrastructure 16:38:47 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0275.html 16:38:48 ... (no comments) 16:39:03 and requests comments 16:39:06 .. the req "5. The content protection solution must support at least one mandatory method that can be used to enable interoperability between different systems. " 16:39:20 ... a lot of discussion on this point so far 16:39:47 ... suggestion of the clearkey system as a recommendation - any comment? 16:40:11 note proposed "Any member of the Media TF MUST be a member of the HTML WG." 16:40:25 joesteele: confused whether this relates to the packaging or ??? 16:40:52 clarke: it means e.g. AES encryption should be common regardless of the key system 16:41:22 joesteele: wanted clarification that packaging would not be encumbered by the requirement 16:42:02 (did not catch the last comment) 16:44:43 markw: the encryption should be clearly specified by the container (scribe: please correct if mis-stated) 16:45:16 johnsimmons: the requirement should not disadvantage CDNs that cannot comply 16:46:31 clarke: there may be conflicting goals... the idea of fully defining an interoperable set of requirements is good but the broader set of forces affecting this may put the advantage of clearkey at risk 16:47:27 aaron: arent there advantages to already being a standard? e.g. well-established containers have methods 16:48:39 joesteele: adding a sub-bullet that the method should be independent of the container format would satisfy the concern, and that we are not specifying the details as part of the interoperability goal 16:49:18 clarke: will add a sub-bullet to separate the key system from the container format, that might clarify 16:49:58 ... any other comments? with those changes, any concerns about the requirement being fulfilled? 16:50:01 ... (no comment) 16:50:37 ... the req "6. Content protection methods must work with "open source" browsers. " 16:51:13 ... getting a lot of discussion... the goal is that open-source implementations are possible 16:51:27 +1 16:51:44 ... any concerns? 16:51:56 zakim, who is noisy? 16:52:07 kaz, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: glenn (18%), Clarke (20%) 16:52:59 +q 16:53:14 CDM not CDN 16:53:19 ???: content protection methods are a broad field, and could have various impacts on CDNs, and some CDNs cannot be implemented in open-source browsers 16:53:59 s/CDN/CDM/g 16:54:10 q- 16:54:18 clarke: the proposal addresses browser implementation, and the proposal is intended to avoid it being implementation blocking to CDMs 16:54:34 s/???:/glenn:/ 16:54:38 have to transition to HTML-WG call prep 16:54:47 -glenn 16:55:03 clarke: will re-write that requirement to address the concern 16:55:31 ... the req "7. Content protection must be useable in HTML5 " 16:55:40 ... apple pie, any comments? 16:55:43 ... (none) 16:55:56 ... the req "8. Content protection must be useable with specific HTML5 features such as media elements (whenand features (such as timed tracks) within these elements. " 16:56:36 ... reflective of the ABR requirement that we wanted to use the media element, not objects, and timed text tracks within that element 16:56:49 ... the proposal should not prevent use of those features 16:57:29 ... parts of the stream should be in the clear e.g. open to search to enable functions 16:57:38 kaz has joined #webtv 16:57:52 ... any concerns that the proposal is not responsive to the reqs? 16:58:12 joesteele: some concerns about that, it probably needs some more specification in that area 16:58:24 glenn_ has joined #webtv 16:58:44 clarke: will rewrite the requirement to be more specific, and take another look at the proposal based upon that 16:58:54 zakim, unmute me 16:58:54 Kazuyuki should no longer be muted 16:58:56 ... next week, we will continue with the rest of the reqs 16:59:21 ... please bring up any concerns on the list. we will continue the process with the ABR proposal 16:59:23 -Franck 16:59:24 -Paul_Gausman 16:59:24 -adrianba 16:59:25 -David_Corvoysier 16:59:25 -Bob 16:59:27 -John_Simmons 16:59:28 -acolwell 16:59:28 -Clarke 16:59:29 -Bryan_Sullivan 16:59:31 -joesteele 16:59:31 adrianba has left #webtv 16:59:33 -Mark_Watson 16:59:37 -Kazuyuki 16:59:38 UW_WebTVIG()11:00AM has ended 16:59:39 Attendees were Kazuyuki, Clarke, Bryan_Sullivan, +1.415.867.aaaa, Mark_Watson, +1.425.269.aabb, John_Simmons, Mark_Vickers, Bob, +1.925.984.aacc, joesteele, Juhani, glenn, 16:59:42 ... David_Corvoysier, +1.206.218.aadd, acolwell, Franck, +1.908.218.aaee, Paul_Gausman, adrianba 16:59:46 glenn has joined #webtv 16:59:48 rrsagent, make log public 16:59:54 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:59:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-webtv-minutes.html kaz 17:00:06 rrsagent, stop