20:03:10 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webrtc
20:03:10 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/24-webrtc-irc
20:03:14 <Josh_Soref> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Apr/0025.html
20:03:21 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, make logs public
20:03:25 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:03:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/24-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
20:03:43 <Josh_Soref> Scribe: Josh_Soref 
20:04:00 <Josh_Soref> Chair: Stefan_Hakansson
20:04:13 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:04:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/24-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
20:04:15 <Travis> Travis has joined #webrtc
20:04:24 <Zakim> +Cathy
20:04:36 <richt> Present+ Rich_Tibbett
20:04:46 <Josh_Soref> Agenda+ Administrativia
20:04:47 <Travis> Present+ Travis_Leithead
20:04:55 <Josh_Soref> Agenda+ Welcome
20:05:01 <Josh_Soref> Agenda+ Scribe
20:05:06 <Josh_Soref> Agenda+ Approve minutes
20:05:11 <Zakim> +??P15
20:05:15 <fjh_> zakim, ??P15 is me
20:05:15 <Zakim> +fjh_; got it
20:05:23 <fjh_> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
20:05:25 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, next
20:05:25 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next', Josh_Soref
20:05:27 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, next agenda
20:05:27 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Administrativia" taken up [from Josh_Soref]
20:05:30 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, next agenda
20:05:30 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, Josh_Soref
20:05:35 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, next agendum
20:05:35 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, Josh_Soref
20:05:43 <fjh_> zakim, who is here?
20:05:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see adambe, Dan_Burnett, Josh_Soref, Stefan_Hakansson, anant, [Mozilla], richt, Cathy, fjh_
20:05:46 <Zakim> [Mozilla] has derf
20:05:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see Travis, RRSAgent, fjh_, Zakim, burn, Cathy, adambe, anant, stefanh, richt, ed, rektide, derf, Josh_Soref, trackbot, dom
20:05:53 <Josh_Soref> zakim, delete item 1
20:05:53 <Zakim> agendum 1, Administrativia, dropped
20:05:54 <Josh_Soref> zakim, delete item 2
20:05:54 <Zakim> agendum 2, Welcome, dropped
20:05:55 <Josh_Soref> zakim, delete item 3
20:05:56 <Zakim> agendum 3, Scribe, dropped
20:05:56 <Josh_Soref> zakim, delete item 4
20:05:56 <Zakim> agendum 4, Approve minutes, dropped
20:05:58 <anant> proposed way to integrate MediaStream into the getUserMedia doc: http://mozilla.github.com/webrtc-w3c/getusermedia.html
20:06:06 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Minutes approval
20:06:13 <Josh_Soref> Resolution: Minutes from last call are approved
20:06:28 <Josh_Soref> i/integrate/Topic: getUserMedia/
20:07:08 <richt> +1 to Anant's proposal.
20:07:10 <Travis> Forgot the conf code? Josh?
20:07:23 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, code?
20:07:23 <Zakim> the conference code is 6227 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Josh_Soref
20:07:32 <Josh_Soref> s/Forgot the conf code? Josh?//
20:07:36 <burn_> burn_ has joined #webrtc
20:07:37 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:07:44 <burn_> zakim, I am Dan_Burnett
20:07:44 <Zakim> ok, burn_, I now associate you with Dan_Burnett
20:07:55 <Josh_Soref> i/Anant/anant: we'd like to propose integrating the change and publishing an editor's draft/
20:08:30 <Josh_Soref> s/Topic: getUserMedia/Topic: Move MediaStream base to getUserMedia doc/
20:08:35 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:08:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/24-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
20:09:28 <Josh_Soref> anant: if there are no major comments, i'd like to move this into VC on Friday
20:09:41 <Josh_Soref> adambe: we can always back out changes
20:10:01 <Josh_Soref> anant: we don't gain anything by publishing sooner
20:10:06 <Zakim> +jesup
20:10:08 <Josh_Soref> Travis: publishing, or getting a new editor's draft?
20:10:19 <Josh_Soref> anant: we'd like to have a new editor's draft
20:10:38 <Zakim> -richt
20:10:42 <Josh_Soref> adambe: the reason i proposed that we should move it as soon as possible
20:10:50 <Josh_Soref> ... is that i don't think we need to introduce another step
20:11:00 <Josh_Soref> ... there's already the Editor's Draft before the Working Draft
20:11:47 <Zakim> +??P4
20:11:54 <richt> zakim, ??P4 is me
20:11:54 <Zakim> +richt; got it
20:11:56 <Josh_Soref> Travis: this change involves moving part from the CVS repo to the Hg repo
20:12:17 <adambe> <- speaker
20:12:40 <jesup> jesup has joined #webrtc
20:12:43 <Josh_Soref> adambe: we're currently working in Github and then publishing to CVS
20:12:55 <jesup> I'm on the 610 number
20:12:58 <Josh_Soref> anant: how does Hg relate to the ED on www?
20:13:18 <Josh_Soref> Travis: pushing to Hg on w3 updates the ED
20:13:46 <Josh_Soref> adambe: where is the mercurial repository in the picture?
20:14:02 <Josh_Soref> XXX: getUserMedia is on Hg (dvcs.w3.org)
20:14:16 <Josh_Soref> ... WebRTC is in CVS (cvs.w3.org)
20:14:26 <stefanh> I said 'Anant, please post a link on the list with a link to the updated version'
20:14:29 <Josh_Soref> adambe: we have git (internal edits)
20:14:56 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: for the time being it will probably stay in the same repo as WebRTC (CVS)
20:15:05 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Resource reservation
20:15:19 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Constraints and Capabilities
20:15:47 <Josh_Soref> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Apr/0027.html
20:15:56 <Josh_Soref> burn_: I put a summary at the top
20:16:07 <Josh_Soref> ... a number of comments on the list were relating to not understanding the structure
20:16:21 <Josh_Soref> ... I looked and realized that a number of things were relating to violating JavaScript syntax
20:16:56 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd much rather XXZ be a dictionary
20:17:04 <Josh_Soref> ... but elements of an array can't be a dictionary
20:17:08 <Josh_Soref> ... so i don't know how to do that
20:17:14 <Josh_Soref> ... suggestions (offline) welcome
20:17:55 <Josh_Soref> ... I distinguished between MediaStream Constraints and XXW
20:18:27 <Josh_Soref> ... when you have an object that has only one key-value pair, and when you have an object with one-or-more key-value pairs
20:18:32 <Josh_Soref> ... looking at Constraints
20:18:37 <Josh_Soref> ... i didn't change the core algorithm
20:18:44 <Josh_Soref> ... I changed 2A and 3C1
20:19:06 <Josh_Soref> ... relating to what to do when a constraint is not supported by the browser
20:19:11 <Josh_Soref> ... 2A is in the Mandatory set
20:19:23 <Josh_Soref> ... if the author specified a Mandatory constraint and the browser doesn't support it
20:19:29 <Josh_Soref> ... then it must count as an error
20:19:35 <Josh_Soref> ... 3C1 is for Optional constraints
20:19:43 <Josh_Soref> ... the instructions say to skip it if the browser doesn't support it
20:19:48 <Josh_Soref> ... I updated the first example
20:19:54 <Josh_Soref> ... to use the new syntax
20:20:13 <Josh_Soref> ... I also added two more examples
20:20:20 <Josh_Soref> ... in the first example, i included mandatory and optional lists
20:20:36 <Josh_Soref> ... both parts are Sequences
20:20:51 <Josh_Soref> ... we could change mandatory could be a Set
20:21:11 <Josh_Soref> ... the browser is specified to honor all constraints for Mandatory, so order doesn't matter
20:21:19 <Josh_Soref> ... but for Optional constraints, order matters
20:21:27 <Josh_Soref> ... if you have conflicting optional constraints
20:21:34 <Josh_Soref> ... the algorithm requires satisfying the first one
20:21:45 <Josh_Soref> ... for simplicity in the mind of the author, both are sequences
20:21:57 <Josh_Soref> ... with ONE value permitted in each array element
20:22:09 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm open to improvement in how we structure each element
20:22:19 <Josh_Soref> ... the requirement stems from having key-value pairs
20:22:36 <Josh_Soref> ... the first example has Mandatory and Optional sections
20:22:47 <Josh_Soref> [ burn_ reads through example ]
20:23:42 <Josh_Soref> burn_: the browser can fail to satisfy optional constraints
20:23:51 <Josh_Soref> ... the goal is to satisfy as many as it can in the order given
20:24:19 <Josh_Soref> ... for the second example
20:24:38 <Josh_Soref> ... what to do if you don't want to set any constraints
20:24:56 <Josh_Soref> ... i came up with a name
20:25:01 <Josh_Soref> ... video enum provide
20:25:16 <Josh_Soref> ... the registry provides for max, min, enum
20:25:43 <Josh_Soref> ... the principal is that there's a constraint for each one
20:25:58 <Josh_Soref> ... solely to say "i want a stream of that type returned"
20:26:16 <Josh_Soref> ... the example says "i must have a video"
20:26:20 <Josh_Soref> ... "audio would be nice"
20:26:26 <Josh_Soref> anant: I like the approach in general
20:27:09 <Josh_Soref> ... XXA
20:27:14 <stefanh> josh: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Feb/0049.html
20:27:17 <Josh_Soref> burn_: I've only defined audio + video
20:27:36 <Josh_Soref> ... i haven't seen any others
20:27:45 <Josh_Soref> anant: i'd propose maintaining the dictionary
20:28:06 <Josh_Soref> Meeting: Media Capture Task Force teleconference
20:28:32 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:28:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/24-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
20:28:42 <anant> {audio: true, video: true} <-- simple case
20:28:46 <richt> q+
20:28:48 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: didn't richt propose something like that?
20:28:51 <Josh_Soref> ack richt 
20:29:12 <anant> {audio: {mandatory: [], optional:[]}, video: {mandatory: [], optional: []}} <-- constraint case
20:29:14 <Josh_Soref> richt: it comes back to a more simple thing
20:29:17 <Josh_Soref> ... it's really the use cases
20:29:22 <Josh_Soref> ... which we haven't talked about at all
20:29:28 <richt> My feedback: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Mar/0042.html
20:29:29 <richt> Travis' feedback: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Mar/0072.html
20:30:05 <Josh_Soref> richt: the use case here is user/environment facing cameras
20:30:15 <Josh_Soref> burn_: you and i have talked about it
20:30:24 <Josh_Soref> ... just because you don't believe it
20:30:35 <Josh_Soref> ... doesn't mean it's a real
20:30:41 <Zakim> + +46.7.34.27.aacc
20:30:54 <Josh_Soref> burn_: i put in a proposal for a user/environment as a constraint
20:31:12 <Josh_Soref> ... i remember someone asking for other things
20:31:22 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe jesup asked about resolution?
20:31:29 <Josh_Soref> richt: i'd really like to see the UCs
20:31:36 <Josh_Soref> ... on the list
20:31:44 <Josh_Soref> ... so we could see it and discuss it
20:31:58 <Josh_Soref> Travis: burn_, stating that a web app needs to control resolution
20:32:01 <Josh_Soref> ... isn't a valid use case
20:32:15 <Josh_Soref> ... you need to frame it in terms of a real application someone wants to build
20:32:15 <anant> s/Travis/anant
20:32:50 <Josh_Soref> harold: i sent an email to XXB list about a UC for RTCWeb needing [rec:F25] to control resolution
20:33:10 <Josh_Soref> s/harold/harald/
20:33:14 <hta> hta has joined #webrtc
20:33:25 <anant> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-06#section-5.3 that's the document
20:33:30 <Josh_Soref> s/harald/hta/
20:33:32 <anant> section 5.3 lists API requirements
20:33:39 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, aacc is Harald_Alvestrand
20:33:39 <Zakim> +Harald_Alvestrand; got it
20:33:45 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, nick hta is Harald_Alvestrand
20:33:45 <Zakim> ok, Josh_Soref, I now associate hta with Harald_Alvestrand
20:33:45 <anant> 5.2 has browser requirements
20:33:54 <hta> Requirement F25 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements
20:34:01 <Josh_Soref> Travis: is controlling resolution similar to min-height/max-height/min-width/max-width
20:34:14 <Josh_Soref> anant: i think width/height are different resolution because pixel density is different
20:34:20 <Josh_Soref> Travis: ah, pixel density
20:34:42 <Josh_Soref> s/i sent an email to XXB list about a/there is a/
20:35:02 <Josh_Soref> anant: we typically try to avoid specifying width/height in pixels
20:35:08 <Josh_Soref> ... typically you use `1em`
20:35:20 <Josh_Soref> ... given that devices have different dimensions
20:35:39 <Josh_Soref> derf: we hard code pixel count for em in CSS
20:35:48 <Josh_Soref> anant: but by using a different unit than pixels
20:35:58 <Josh_Soref> ... it gives us the freedom to vary
20:36:01 <Josh_Soref> Josh_Soref: No it doesn't
20:36:04 <Josh_Soref> derf: not at all
20:36:17 <Josh_Soref> anant: we should use a different dimension for width-height
20:36:22 <Josh_Soref> ... and then use pixels for dpi
20:36:33 <Josh_Soref> Travis: if we want media stream to interoperate with Canvas which deals in pixels
20:36:40 <Josh_Soref> ... then we need to have a way to translate
20:36:49 <Josh_Soref> Travis: i'd like to get back to burn_ 
20:37:00 <Josh_Soref> ... on mandatory/optional for vidoe/audio
20:37:16 <Josh_Soref> burn_: the pixel dimension discussion is orthogonal
20:37:29 <Josh_Soref> ... wrt audio/video with mandatory/optional
20:37:34 <Josh_Soref> ... and a simplified form of true
20:37:46 <Josh_Soref> ... while audio/video are the two stream types we talk about today
20:37:57 <Josh_Soref> ... those are the types that my company cares about
20:38:09 <anant> q+
20:38:11 <Josh_Soref> ... i've heard people say they want to support other media types in the future
20:38:32 <Josh_Soref> ... so i tried to come up with a data structure that doesn't constrain to audio/video
20:38:39 <Josh_Soref> ... only the registry constrains it
20:38:51 <Josh_Soref> ... if a new media type comes up, then you can just add items to the registry
20:38:56 <Josh_Soref> ... without reving the document
20:39:03 <Josh_Soref> Travis: one of the UCs suggested a while ago
20:39:07 <Josh_Soref> ... was to record your screen
20:39:16 <Josh_Soref> ... while that technically falls under the category of Video
20:39:25 <Josh_Soref> ... it seems like you could define that as a new Provider
20:39:38 <Josh_Soref> ... [The Screen]
20:39:41 <Josh_Soref> burn_: that's possible
20:39:58 <Josh_Soref> ... you could go to the registry and do that
20:40:24 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe there are kinds of Text sent as something other than audio/video
20:40:30 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't know what the future holds
20:41:01 <Josh_Soref> Travis: i think it's definitely good that we design this API so that it's easily extensible/not limiting
20:41:03 <Josh_Soref> ... i applaud that
20:41:17 <Josh_Soref> anant: the reason you don't want it to be top level is to avoid revising the API spec
20:41:29 <Josh_Soref> ... it seems like we're working around revising the api
20:41:38 <jesup> media == time-labelled sampled data, typically from a sensor of some sort
20:41:57 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe we should make the first argument to XXC be extensible
20:42:06 <Josh_Soref> ... so that we could extend things in the future
20:42:10 <anant> s/XXC/getUserMedia
20:42:28 <Josh_Soref> burn_: i think we should decide how the registry should operate
20:42:35 <Josh_Soref> ... i was trying to make the registry easier
20:42:41 <Josh_Soref> s/easier/easy/
20:43:07 <Josh_Soref> ... if you and others would rather audio+video be top level, we could do it
20:43:25 <Josh_Soref> anant: we should prioritize the API being better over curating the registry
20:43:29 <Josh_Soref> burn_: i agree with you
20:43:40 <Josh_Soref> ... in general i'm in favor of making things easier for the end user of the api
20:43:45 <Josh_Soref> ... vs the implementers
20:44:05 <Josh_Soref> Travis: may i propose that we just add audio+video to the constraints dictionary
20:44:20 <Josh_Soref> hta: can i propose to not do that
20:44:31 <Josh_Soref> ... having two pathways through the code makes it more complex
20:44:43 <Josh_Soref> adambe: Travis is proposing something similar to the one i proposed
20:44:52 <Josh_Soref> ... you'd remove the audio-enum-provide
20:44:57 <Josh_Soref> Travis: that's what i'm trying to suggest
20:45:01 <Josh_Soref> ... we should take this to the list
20:45:16 <Josh_Soref> adambe: there's already a thread about the syntax of this
20:45:31 <Josh_Soref> ... paul neave
20:45:39 <Josh_Soref> ... burn_ pointed out that order is important
20:45:42 <Josh_Soref> ... we have a thread for this
20:45:49 <Josh_Soref> ... regarding anant 's proposal
20:45:54 <Josh_Soref> ... and revising the w3c spec
20:46:04 <Josh_Soref> ... i don't think there's a problem with adding screen at a later point
20:46:10 <Josh_Soref> ... adding stuff is pretty straightforward
20:46:11 <Josh_Soref> q?
20:46:14 <Josh_Soref> q-
20:46:18 <Josh_Soref> Travis: i agree
20:46:22 <anant> q-
20:46:30 <Josh_Soref> ... and adding things would be backwards compatible
20:46:38 <Josh_Soref> richt: to be clear on that
20:46:46 <Josh_Soref> ... we have implemented it
20:46:50 <Josh_Soref> ... but we can make it work
20:46:56 <Josh_Soref> ... we shouldn't be wed to the current bit
20:47:06 <Josh_Soref> Travis: that's a very politically correct thing to say
20:47:48 <Josh_Soref> burn_: if the way to actually make this work is to have mandatory, optional, audio, video
20:47:52 <Josh_Soref> ... and that we can add others later
20:48:00 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe that's the way to go
20:48:08 <Josh_Soref> XXD: maybe that's the way to go
20:48:19 <Josh_Soref> richt: there's concern about booleans
20:48:24 <Josh_Soref> ... dictionaries would be better
20:48:28 <stefanh> s/XXD/stefanh/
20:48:34 <Josh_Soref> burn_: closer to what anant proposed?
20:48:35 <Josh_Soref> richt: yes
20:48:40 <Josh_Soref> burn_: i'm fine with that too
20:48:48 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe the thing to do is to write up both
20:48:51 <richt> I'll try to dig up the email referring to why booleans are bad in web apis :)
20:48:52 <Josh_Soref> ... and see what people think
20:49:14 <Josh_Soref> ACTION burn_ to write up the audio-video-mandatory proposals to the list
20:49:14 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - burn_
20:49:19 <Josh_Soref> ACTION burn to write up the audio-video-mandatory proposals to the list
20:49:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-41 - Write up the audio-video-mandatory proposals to the list [on Daniel Burnett - due 2012-05-01].
20:49:37 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Constaints Example 2
20:49:46 <Josh_Soref> s/2/3/
20:49:55 <Josh_Soref> ... in the third example, audio+video are in mandatory
20:50:03 <Josh_Soref> ... the browser has to return audio+video, or it's an error
20:50:07 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Capabilities
20:50:09 <adambe> richt:: this was the mail I was talking about earlier http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2011Dec/0061.html
20:50:13 <Josh_Soref> q?
20:50:48 <Josh_Soref> burn_: I cleaned up the definition of the structure
20:50:51 <Josh_Soref> ... so it's now an array
20:50:57 <Josh_Soref> ... with one entry for each device/channel
20:51:06 <Josh_Soref> ... i'll let someone else suggest the appropriate term for that
20:51:13 <Josh_Soref> ... each entry contains an id + capabilities
20:51:37 <Josh_Soref> ... an id needs to be unique relative to the other ids in the same capabilities array
20:51:45 <Josh_Soref> ... "camera001" v. "camera002"
20:51:54 <Josh_Soref> ... the name must be composed of the high level media type
20:52:05 <Josh_Soref> ... Camera should have said Video
20:52:21 <Josh_Soref> ... followed by an opaque alphanumeric id
20:52:33 <Josh_Soref> ... so that you can distinguish by media type and per device
20:52:39 <Josh_Soref> ... but nothing else
20:53:01 <Josh_Soref> ... i used "supported" and "satisfiable" 
20:53:11 <Josh_Soref> ... the description of the Trusted Scenario hasn't changed
20:53:20 <Josh_Soref> ... I added a bit for the Untrusted Scenario
20:53:31 <Josh_Soref> ... for the uses at my company, we're pretty much interested in the trusted scenario
20:53:49 <Josh_Soref> ... if people have suggestions for untrusted, please do
20:54:08 <Josh_Soref> ... my suggestion was just listing IDs, but no capabilties
20:54:20 <Josh_Soref> ... determining trust levels, I wrote TBD
20:54:30 <Josh_Soref> ... other TF members are better able to comment
20:54:40 <Josh_Soref> anant: the getCapabilities call
20:54:45 <Josh_Soref> ... you defined it under navigator
20:54:50 <richt> s#I'll try to dig up the email referring to why booleans are bad in web apis :)#Why booleans are bad in Web APIs: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0349.html/#
20:54:52 <Josh_Soref> ... we can't have it there
20:55:08 <Josh_Soref> ... we could have navigator.media.getCapabilities
20:55:24 <Josh_Soref> burn_: good point
20:55:34 <Josh_Soref> ... i wasn't paying attention to that. you're absolutely right
20:55:39 <Josh_Soref> ... let's do that on the list
20:55:43 <Travis> navigator.getUserMediaCapabilities :) (bikeshedding)
20:56:07 <Josh_Soref> ... that's related to the discussion about how many different places should you be able to get capabilities/set constraints
20:56:16 <Josh_Soref> ... we should decide what these mean
20:56:19 <Josh_Soref> anant: i agree
20:56:25 <Josh_Soref> ... your company is the trusted case
20:56:44 <Josh_Soref> ... at mozilla we're more interested in the untrusted case and expect it to be more common
20:57:04 <Josh_Soref> burn_: there reason it isn't there is because although i think it's important, i don't know how to do it right and want someone to do it right
20:57:21 <Josh_Soref> hta: if you have a camera (with microphone), is it really two devices?
20:57:30 <Josh_Soref> burn_: i was, but i am open to that
20:57:36 <Josh_Soref> ... we have a challenge anyway
20:57:46 <Josh_Soref> ... earlier proposals didn't really distinguish
20:57:57 <Josh_Soref> ... they asked for "give me audio+video from the same device"
20:58:16 <Josh_Soref> ... this is where anant 's more general constraints coming in
20:58:25 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe i want audio+video from the same deivce
20:58:32 <Josh_Soref> s/deivce/device/
20:58:48 <Josh_Soref> hta: isn't that incompatible?
20:58:55 <Josh_Soref> ... where would those go?
20:59:00 <anant> s/hta/adambe
20:59:01 <Josh_Soref> burn_: under General
20:59:35 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
20:59:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/24-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
21:00:11 <Josh_Soref> hta: we need to be clear about whether a camera with audio is two or one device
21:00:17 <Josh_Soref> adambe: it doesn't have to be two devices
21:00:28 <Josh_Soref> ... say i want to use my headset with a mic and my webcam
21:00:36 <Josh_Soref> ... you can't force people to force them to use the crappy mic
21:00:46 <Josh_Soref> hta: you might want to know if the mic is next to the camera
21:01:27 <Josh_Soref> ... i expect CLUE people will want the 6-dimensional coordinates of the microphone
21:01:33 <Josh_Soref> adambe: about the algorithm
21:01:50 <Josh_Soref> ... 1C the first pass is through all possible streams the browser could return
21:01:57 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm not sure how practical that is
21:02:05 <Josh_Soref> [ burn_ points to sentence ]
21:02:29 <Josh_Soref> burn_: there may be more efficient ways to implement this
21:02:38 <Josh_Soref> ... it's easier to describe this algorithm as a process of eliminitatoin
21:02:49 <Josh_Soref> s/eliminitatoin/elimination/
21:02:55 <Josh_Soref> ... than a process of addition
21:03:13 <Josh_Soref> ... if the browser can take its 5 streams and know which satisfy the algorithm, that's fine
21:03:17 <Josh_Soref> Travis: algorithm step 4
21:03:30 <Josh_Soref> ... will call success callback with the final set
21:03:38 <Josh_Soref> ... does each callback get a single track?
21:03:51 <Josh_Soref> ... or does the UA group them into as many compatible stream objects as possible?
21:03:55 <Josh_Soref> burn_: i wasn't clear about this
21:04:09 <Josh_Soref> ... for quite a while, there wasn't clear on what a Stream was v. Track v. Channel
21:04:24 <Josh_Soref> ... it depends on what we say getUserMedia should return
21:04:36 <Josh_Soref> ... if one media stream is returned containing multiple tracks
21:04:44 <Josh_Soref> ... then i'd say it has at most 1 audio and 1 video
21:04:56 <Josh_Soref> ... if the group says that they're separate, then i'm fine with that too
21:05:02 <Josh_Soref> ... when you get to this algorithm
21:05:06 <Josh_Soref> ... See 3
21:05:23 <Josh_Soref> ... 3D, select one stream from the candidate set and add it to the final set
21:05:30 <jesup> q+
21:05:43 <Josh_Soref> ... we add one set of video-data (if requested) and one set of audio-data (if requested)
21:05:45 <Josh_Soref> ... we're not merging
21:05:57 <Josh_Soref> ... [ burn_ tries to avoid saying Stream/Track ]
21:06:12 <Josh_Soref> hta: i think it should be Track
21:06:19 <Josh_Soref> burn_: the closest to my understanding is Track
21:06:24 <Josh_Soref> ... so i should probably rewrite it
21:06:43 <Josh_Soref> Travis: the algorithm will return at most one Track of audio and one Track of video
21:06:48 <Josh_Soref> ... and return it in some container
21:07:01 <Josh_Soref> adambe: the output is what the user gives it
21:07:07 <Josh_Soref> ... it isn't a problem if
21:07:23 <Josh_Soref> burn_: the point of constraints is to say what you as an application author cares about
21:07:27 <Josh_Soref> ... and the browser selects one
21:07:35 <Josh_Soref> adambe: the user needs to select a camera
21:08:04 <Josh_Soref> ... even if you have constraints, the user needs to select from the satisfiable list
21:08:18 <Josh_Soref> hta: step 3D
21:08:28 <Josh_Soref> ... select one stream [s.b track]
21:08:37 <Josh_Soref> ... this step may be automatic or involve user interaction
21:08:40 <Josh_Soref> ack
21:08:45 <Josh_Soref> s/ack//
21:08:47 <Josh_Soref> ack jesup 
21:08:59 <Josh_Soref> jesup: if these algorithms are limited to returning a single video/audio track
21:09:09 <Josh_Soref> ... how do we handle the UCs that handle multiple synchronized cameras?
21:09:21 <Josh_Soref> ... this algorithm concerns me
21:09:26 <Josh_Soref> burn_: that's a great question
21:09:33 <Josh_Soref> ... there's a separate thread on the list about that
21:09:39 <Josh_Soref> ... whether it should return one track per media type
21:09:49 <Josh_Soref> ... or should return multiple ones
21:09:55 <Josh_Soref> ... the algorithm is written for the single case
21:10:03 <Josh_Soref> ... it's possible to extend it for multiple
21:10:11 <Josh_Soref> ... but i'd like to scope that to a distinct discussion
21:10:24 <Josh_Soref> ... i agree jesup, this algorithm doesn't cover that
21:10:53 <Josh_Soref> hta: burn_, there's a step where the user would be involved
21:10:59 <Josh_Soref> s/hta/stefanh/
21:11:14 <Josh_Soref> burn_: i don't know if we've been completely clear about how permissions work
21:11:19 <Josh_Soref> ... or where user involvement occurs
21:11:24 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm open to suggestions
21:11:31 <Josh_Soref> ... maybe hta's 3D is correct
21:11:40 <Josh_Soref> hta: it needs to be before the success callback
21:11:47 <Josh_Soref> burn_: i don't have a particular opinion on that
21:11:53 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm happy to have other people duke it out
21:12:02 <Josh_Soref> ... and we can add it explicitly if it's necessary
21:12:09 <Josh_Soref> richt: i believe it's covered in the existing algorithm
21:12:15 <Josh_Soref> ... it says the user must select something
21:12:20 <Josh_Soref> ... i need to go check
21:12:55 <Josh_Soref> burn_: the last bit is registration
21:13:04 <Josh_Soref> ... audio/video were the only two listed as required
21:13:13 <Josh_Soref> ... but if we change the structure,...
21:13:24 <Josh_Soref> ... i put example definitions for width/height/direction
21:13:28 <Josh_Soref> ... those are _examples_
21:13:33 <Josh_Soref> ... it is up to this group to decide
21:13:34 <richt> fyi: Step 10 in existing getUserMedia algorithm is the point that permissions occur: http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html#navigatorusermedia
21:13:37 <Josh_Soref> ... on constraints
21:13:46 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd almost rather other people suggest them
21:14:00 <Josh_Soref> ... it seems whatever i propose, some want and some oppose
21:14:07 <adambe> in (hta: it needs to be before the success callback) s/hta/adambe/
21:14:10 <Josh_Soref> ... but i think we can take that to the list
21:14:13 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: thanks burn_ 
21:14:33 <richt> q+
21:14:38 <Josh_Soref> ... it seems we're discussing details
21:14:41 <Josh_Soref> ... are there objections?
21:14:43 <Josh_Soref> ack richt 
21:14:51 <Josh_Soref> richt: i'm objecting
21:14:58 <Josh_Soref> ... i want to see some UCs
21:15:03 <Josh_Soref> ... that's the premise
21:15:09 <Josh_Soref> ... i think it's very important
21:15:21 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: we have the Scenarios document that Travis wrote
21:15:50 <Josh_Soref> richt: i looked through the requirements from Travis's document, and i don't think anything needs this
21:16:04 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: hta pointed out F25
21:16:08 <Josh_Soref> richt: I think F24
21:16:18 <Josh_Soref> ... was very vague
21:16:33 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:16:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/24-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
21:17:13 <Josh_Soref> s|in (hta: it needs to be before the success callback) s/hta/adambe/||
21:17:30 <richt> The WebRTC requirement says: "The browser MUST be able to take advantage of capabilities to prioritize voice and video appropriately." That doesn't necessarily pre-ordain constraints are required IMO.
21:17:38 <Josh_Soref> s|hta: it needs to|adambe: it needs to|
21:17:46 <richt> F24 in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-06
21:17:47 <Josh_Soref> Travis: i've been planning to update the document
21:18:01 <Josh_Soref> ... i anticipate in the next several weeks to be able to put forth an update
21:18:14 <Josh_Soref> ACTION Travis to update the scenarios document requirements portion
21:18:14 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Travis
21:18:31 <hta> Travis is not a member of WEBRTC, which creates a bit of a problem.
21:18:42 <Josh_Soref> Travis: if anyone has other things they want to see added
21:18:46 <Josh_Soref> ... please send them my way
21:18:56 <Josh_Soref> s/Travis is not a member of WEBRTC, which creates a bit of a problem.//
21:19:26 <Josh_Soref> ACTION stefanh to check with Travis on updating the scenarios document requirements portion in about 4 weeks
21:19:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-42 - Check with Travis on updating the scenarios document requirements portion in about 4 weeks [on Stefan Håkansson - due 2012-05-01].
21:20:29 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: maybe hta and i should give help
21:20:36 <Josh_Soref> Travis: i'm certainly open to that
21:20:47 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:20:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/24-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
21:22:20 <Josh_Soref> Travis: we should keep in mind what happens when getUserMedia is called a second/third time with different constraints
21:22:28 <Josh_Soref> ... it came up while microsoft was investigating this feature
21:22:32 <Josh_Soref> burn_: that's a good point
21:22:48 <jesup> g+
21:22:53 <Josh_Soref> ... it's good to know when you're requesting new streams, and when you're requesting replacement streams
21:22:56 <jesup> q+
21:23:04 <Josh_Soref> anant: is there a reason to distinguish?
21:23:14 <Josh_Soref> ... as opposed to you just closing a stream and requesting a new one
21:23:21 <Josh_Soref> ack jesup 
21:23:31 <Josh_Soref> jesup: replacing may cause it to choose a different camera
21:23:44 <Josh_Soref> ... or querying the user may be a problem
21:23:53 <Josh_Soref> ... or interupting the stream may cause a glitch
21:24:14 <Josh_Soref> ... i'm very much in favor of an API which allows for requesting modifications to existing streams
21:24:24 <Josh_Soref> ... i made comments on the list
21:24:25 <anant> q+
21:24:29 <richt> q+
21:24:34 <Josh_Soref> ... we talked about using the constraint language
21:24:40 <Josh_Soref> ... for modifying an existing request
21:24:47 <Josh_Soref> ack anant 
21:24:57 <Josh_Soref> anant: i agree there are valid UCs for replacement v. new
21:25:11 <Josh_Soref> ... i'd like to make a straw man that we don't need to use getUserMedia
21:25:15 <Josh_Soref> ... for replacement
21:25:27 <Josh_Soref> ... I think there's a set of constraints the browser could change automatically
21:25:32 <jesup> anant: agree
21:25:50 <Josh_Soref> ... there are some which the browser would need to do with User interaction
21:26:04 <Josh_Soref> ... for Modification, we could have the API be on the Stream object
21:26:08 <Josh_Soref> Travis: i'll second that
21:26:24 <Josh_Soref> ... and suggest we describe what the action is for the affected stream
21:26:36 <Josh_Soref> hta: i also like the idea of modifying the capabilities of an existing stream
21:26:42 <anant> q-
21:26:47 <Josh_Soref> ... because it also maps well to modifying remote streams
21:26:53 <Josh_Soref> richt: I also agree
21:27:18 <Josh_Soref> [ Time check ]
21:27:24 <Josh_Soref> Topic: Next Call
21:27:31 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: we should arrange for a new call
21:27:33 <richt> richt: I was going to suggest the same thing as Anant. That changing the capabilities of an existing stream should happen on the LocalMediaStream object.
21:27:52 <Josh_Soref> ... when should the next call be?
21:27:58 <Josh_Soref> ... after the WebApps F2F meeting?
21:28:11 <Josh_Soref> ... [ the first week of May ]
21:28:19 <Josh_Soref> hta: at least 2 weeks from now
21:28:22 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: yes
21:28:31 <Josh_Soref> burn_: that should be easy if we're just continuing the agenda
21:28:48 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: hta and I will put up a doodle
21:29:03 <Josh_Soref> hta: from the week of May 6th to the 12th
21:29:07 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: yeah
21:29:22 <Josh_Soref> stefanh: thanks everyone for joining
21:29:32 <Josh_Soref> [ Thanks to the scribe for scribing ]
21:29:37 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:29:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/24-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
21:29:39 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
21:29:40 <Josh_Soref> [ Adjourned ]
21:29:40 <Zakim> -Harald_Alvestrand
21:29:41 <Zakim> -fjh_
21:29:41 <Zakim> -richt
21:29:43 <Zakim> -Stefan_Hakansson
21:29:43 <Zakim> -anant
21:29:44 <Zakim> -Dan_Burnett
21:29:44 <Zakim> -[Mozilla]
21:29:51 <fjh> fjh has left #webrtc
21:29:53 <jesup> I can stay a few
21:30:02 <Travis> Zakim: [Microsoft] is Travis
21:30:09 <Zakim> -Cathy
21:30:57 <Josh_Soref> s/XXX/anant/
21:31:05 <Travis> :-)
21:32:03 <Josh_Soref> s/XXZ/MediaStreamDeviceCapabilities/
21:32:55 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:32:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/24-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
21:33:04 <jesup> I need to drop off; no other ideas I note from looking at the XX's
21:33:17 <Zakim> -jesup
21:33:24 <Josh_Soref> s/I need to drop off; no other ideas I note from looking at the XX's//
21:33:33 <jesup> jesup has left #webrtc
21:34:18 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, woh is on the call?
21:34:18 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, Josh_Soref.
21:34:26 <Josh_Soref> Zakim, who is on the call?
21:34:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see adambe, Josh_Soref
21:34:29 <Josh_Soref> s/josh: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Feb/0049.html//
21:34:35 <Josh_Soref> s|s/josh: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Feb/0049.html//||
21:34:40 <Josh_Soref> s|josh: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2012Feb/0049.html||
21:35:01 <Josh_Soref> s/... XXA//
21:35:04 <Josh_Soref> RRSAgent, draft minutes
21:35:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/24-webrtc-minutes.html Josh_Soref
21:36:10 <Zakim> -Josh_Soref
21:36:12 <Zakim> -adambe
21:36:12 <Zakim> UW_MdCap()4:00PM has ended
21:36:12 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.650.735.aaaa, adambe, Dan_Burnett, Josh_Soref, +1.650.735.aabb, anant, Stefan_Hakansson, richt, derf, Cathy, fjh_, [Microsoft], jesup, +46.7.34.27.aacc,
21:36:12 <Zakim> ... Harald_Alvestrand
21:36:14 <Josh_Soref> trackbot, end meeting
21:36:14 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
21:36:14 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
21:36:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
21:36:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/24-webrtc-minutes.html trackbot
21:36:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
21:36:23 <RRSAgent> I see no action items