See also: IRC log
Clarke: review bugs and first draft of reqs doc -- anything else?
Clarke: no new bugs recorded --
any new ones?
... any status changes on the 7 bugs we are tracking?
giuseppe: some comments on one of the bugs
Clarke: anything we want to cover on those bugs?
guiseppe: not for now
Clarke: just sent ADB reqs doc --
this will be submitted to HTML Media TF
... follows the MPTF template. not on a common repository yet, sent as an enclosure
... GoToMeeting to follow along
... two main things to cover today ...
… reqs listed form our dashboard page ...
… section for more comments -- not filled in yet ...
… section on security and next steps ...
… part to expand on today is terminology.
Clarke: need to get additional
terms that need to be brought up in the doc
... any terms that are related to ADB that need to be added?
Clarke: we could add a definition
for ADB itself
... probably "manifest file"
giuseppe: list the open sources for this document as well
Clarke: few definitions from the
... "common time base" ?
... what about "trick play"?
John_Simmons: for a doc intended
to be requirements, any definitions not around objects you are
trying to articulate are not required
... a lot of things mentioned will fall out of the proposals created and attempts to create a solution for the HTML WG
... main thing is to get the reqs clear
Clarke: get things specific to a
proposal and those should be in the proposal
... what about "user agent"?
John_Simmons: this is a well define term in the HTML WG -- does not need to be defined
Clarke: any other terms to
... please take a look at the TOC and see if anything is there
Clarke: <reading the TOC>
joesteele: definition of "track"?
Duncan: authors of the spec has Adrian instead of Kilroy
Clarke: any other comment on the
... back to the agenda
Clarke: anything else to discuss here?
John_Simmons: the TF has been proposed in HTML WG, comments have been posted, similar to previous discussion there are people opposed to there even being a TF ...
… I encourage people interested in seeing this work to express their support for creation of this TF ...
Mark_Vickers: do we respond to the CFC?
John_SImmons: yes - just respond that we support the creation of this task force
Clarke: I thought we had gone through this -- what determines whether a TF gets formed? simple majority? feedback? ...
… how do we know when enough support has been given?
John_Simmons: it is not a forgone conclusion that TF will be created
<glenn> there aren't really any rules
<glenn> it is a matter of the chairs to determine consensus
kaz: consensus is the process
<glenn> consensus does not mean unanimity
kaz: it would be useful to send out supporting message
Clarke: seems unlikely to be agreement. does a vote happen?
kaz: yes -- final resolution is a vote
<glenn> no vote will occur if the chairs feel there is no need for it
Clarke: companies get to
... expressing support is useful and encouraged, but final decision is subject to ambiguity
<glenn> the response date already passed
Mark_Vickers: I am going to respond today and I encourage others
<glenn> and it only asked for objections
Clarke: any other
... any other topics?
... short meeting today. Will update the docs and send out the links for review.
<kaz> [ adjourned ]