<Clarke> requirements dashboard: http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF

Content protection

Content protection Req #8 reworded: "Content protection must be useable with specific HTML5 features such as media elements (and features (such as timed tracks) within these elements)."

Agreed.

Kilroy: want to be compatible with media source element, new Req #13 ?

Req. #9. "Media element features that are available in an implementation must be available for encrypted content as well as unencrypted content."

<kaz> (question by Joe)

Clarke: Intention is that certain elements are not eliminated due to encryption ... like locating ... accessibility ...

Bob_Lund: Two issues: what source of access to media stream, accessibility through various A/V tracks

Joe: Issue with the proposal ...

Bob: Enumerate text tracks .... sign, descriptive audio to be encrypted etc. ... to be detailed

Aaron: Text tracks out-of-band not covered by encryption spec ....

markW: Agree with the out-band statement by Aaron ...
... Open what to do with the issue

Bob: Describe / identify the tracks in minimum

Kilroy: Encryption in two levels ....

out-of-band for the Kilroy part ....

MarkW: clear key not specified yet where to apply to which extent

Clarke: Reqs for out-of-band ... ?

joe: Limit acceptance of the solution if out-of-band not taken into account ... like Caption data
... Enough of value to protect

Joe: Support some of it encrypted

Bob: Strt and end of trakcs not to encrypt for browsrs to make any use of the tracks (captions)

clarke: discussion to continue, people responses asked for

<kaz> ACTION: Clarke to work with Bob and modify the text om content protection requirement under consideration #9 based on today's discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-webtv-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Work with Bob and modify the text om content protection requirement under consideration #9 based on today's discussion [on Clarke Stevens - due 2012-03-22].

#10.The particular content protection method required to use the content must be identifiable. ---> Change to methods

<kaz> Kilroy: would propose adding identifiable priority to downloading

Kilroy: Add: ... prior to downloading the media
... metadata before the media

MarkW: Supported in the proposal
... MIME type is not completely descripttive .... answer of support is 'probably', not strong 'YES'

Joe: Link to MIME type extnesions ?

Will be provided by Mark

#11.Any parameters required for use of the content protection method must be identified and specifiable.

MarkW: Paramters in the content file itself
... scripts independent of protection systems in the proposal
... core idea there
... What paramters to pass .. please provide examples
... CP specific parmaters as a requirement may be more difficult ...

Joe: Enforcement in CDM ... general purpose applications not able to use ... ?

Clarke: Proposal does not violate the req ... but is the req useful ?

Req. #11 to be deleted

#12.Specific errors relevant to content protections must be identified and reportable.

Req. #12 is according to our previous detailed error requirements

<joesteele> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/HTML_Error_codes

<joesteele> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html#error-codes

Is it ?

MarkW: Earlier errors more on network etc. errors ... still to be addressed in LC

Clarke: #12 to satisfy CP proposal ... ? ---> OK

#13.The content protection method must be compatible with the (new) media source element as described in the adaptive bit rate proposal.

Aaron: Compatibility should not require implementation mandatory, otherwise OK

<Clarke> new ABR proposal: http://html5-mediasource-api.googlecode.com/svn/tags/0.4/draft-spec/mediasource-draft-spec.html

Adaptive Streaming - revised proposal ...

Aaron: Source ID added ...
... allows two separate streams
... enables swithcing lang, different decoders, ...
... Source ID main API change
... overlapping regions, rules, ... clarifications
... for compatibility reasons ... to nail down details
... Byte stream format ?

Aaron: WebM and ISO file formats ... examples of usage
... How to limit the ...

How much data buffered by browser

waht tpyes of splices

sample rate changes

Appending byte ranges ...

Clarke: Comments to authors ?

Joe: Issues identified ?

In section 8

<kaz> Open Issues

Clarke: Administrative issue ... next week not chaired by Clarke

Joe: Progress in the new TF ? If no, then can skip next week telco

Clarke: Proceeding well, rules under creation, to become memebr of HTML WG to contirbute

<kaz> HTML WG discussion

MarkW: Call for Consensus coming
... timing open

Kaz: join HTML WG to participate ... name Encrypted Media TF
... not much an issue as TF only to create

Clarke: Content protection is the first priority ... reqs to be ready ... next telco after two weeks ?

Agreed

Kilroy: Flow diagram sect. 1 in , CDM diagram in Protection proposal ...how to look as one

<kaz> Section 1 of "Encrypted Media Extensions" proposal

[ adjourned ]