15:58:21 RRSAgent has joined #html-media
15:58:21 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/19-html-media-irc
15:58:23 RRSAgent, make logs public
15:58:23 Zakim has joined #html-media
15:58:25 Zakim, this will be 63342
15:58:25 ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
15:58:26 Meeting: HTML Media Task Force Teleconference
15:58:26 Date: 19 February 2013
15:59:03 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Feb/0082.html
16:01:03 markw has joined #html-media
16:01:13 zakim, this is HTML_WG
16:01:13 ok, adrianba; that matches HTML_WG()11:00AM
16:01:19 zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:19 On the phone I see +1.408.536.aaaa, Mark_Watson, [Microsoft], [Microsoft.a]
16:01:26 zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:01:26 +adrianba; got it
16:01:31 Zakim, aaaa is me
16:01:31 +joesteele; got it
16:01:43 zakim, [Microsoft] is paulc
16:01:43 +paulc; got it
16:01:58 ScribeNick: adrianba
16:02:09 + +1.425.202.aabb
16:02:17 BobLund has joined #html-media
16:02:18 Scribe: Adrian Bateman
16:02:23 Chair: Paul Cotton
16:02:36 zakim, aabb isme
16:02:36 I don't understand 'aabb isme', ddorwin
16:02:46 zakim, aabb is me
16:02:46 +ddorwin; got it
16:02:48 Mark_Vickers has joined #html-media
16:02:51 johnsim_ has joined #html-media
16:03:44 TOPIC: Roll call, introductions and selection of scribe
16:03:46 + +1.303.661.aacc
16:04:04 zakim, what is code?
16:04:04 I don't understand your question, glenn.
16:04:13 zakim, 303.661.aacc is me
16:04:14 sorry, BobLund, I do not recognize a party named '303.661.aacc'
16:04:29 paulc: done
16:04:29 +[Microsoft]
16:04:35 zakim, +1.303.661.aacc is me
16:04:36 +BobLund; got it
16:04:37 TOPIC: Previous meeting minutes
16:04:43 paulc: no comments
16:04:48 zakim, [microsoft] is me
16:04:48 +johnsim_; got it
16:04:50 TOPIC: Review of action items
16:04:56 paulc: none for this spec
16:05:10 TOPIC: Baseline documents
16:05:11 q+
16:05:19 zakim, what's the code?
16:05:19 the conference code is 63342 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), glenn
16:05:27 q?
16:05:45 +Mark_Vickers
16:05:56 + +1.417.671.aadd
16:06:13 zakim, aadd is me
16:06:13 +glenn; got it
16:06:15 adrianba: it has been updated since jan 22 - i forgot to change the date
16:06:27 ... we added a note to the abstract pointing to one of the bugs
16:07:10 paulc: might be more appropriate to put in the status of the document
16:07:24 adrianba: i added it where i thought most appropriate - happy to move it
16:07:39 +q
16:07:58 ack adrian
16:08:03 paulc: any more changes should be made in the ED and then maybe make a new FPWD
16:08:10 ack joe
16:08:11 q-
16:08:12 joesteele: how are we going to move forward?
16:08:20 paulc: that's next on the agenda
16:08:32 TOPIC: Progression to First Public Working Draft
16:08:45 paulc: included links in the agenda
16:09:02 ... last time we said we were working with the Team on this
16:09:16 ... result of this was a Team statement that the work is in scope for the HTML WG
16:09:22 Team statement: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html
16:09:34 paulc: there have been some questions about this statement on the WG list
16:09:55 Chairs decision on CfC: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0123.html
16:10:19 ... subsequent to this statement, which the chairs helped edit for clarity, the chairs issued their decision on CfC
16:10:34 ... divided into two topics: those about scope and those about technical issues
16:10:46 ... the first set were ruled out of order based on the Team statement
16:11:01 ... the second set requested specific bugs to be reported by Feb 15
16:11:11 "specific bug reports to be filed against the Encrypted Media Extensions component in bugzilla[1] by February 15th."
16:11:33 paulc: what has happened is that we have a series of bugs filed
16:12:06 ... list in the agenda is indicative, not definitive list - may be some others
16:12:16 ... expect the TF to respond to this set of bugs
16:13:07 ... when we reevaluate the publication of FPWD, we will consider only this set of bugs and assess how handled
16:13:14 ... we need to review and decide how to respond
16:13:30 q+
16:13:38 ack adrian
16:13:41 Where is the agenda with this list?
16:14:00 got it
16:14:10 adrianba: 3 keys issues
16:14:11 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Feb/0082.html
16:14:27 adrianba: There are 3 key issues we should try and address. The rest don't provide specific information or are out of scope.
16:15:37 The three are 20944 to encourage interop, 20965 related to privacy (how to handle individualization such as individual keys for devices - and whether the spec should provide guidance on that), and 21016 - a proposal to separate Clear Key into a separate spec.
16:15:52 s/The three/...The three/
16:15:59 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944
16:16:22 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965
16:16:29 adrianba: The rest we have tried to address and were reopened without actionable information.
16:16:44 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016
16:17:01 20944: Editors have added a note to the Editors draft
16:17:12 +q
16:17:24 -q
16:17:27 paulc: those would be three that we'd discuss explicitly?
16:18:15 adrianba: For the first two, I think we can just point to them as open issues as we did for MSE FPWD.
16:18:23 +q
16:18:24 Adrian: proposes to add a note for 20965 as well as for 20944
16:18:32 ack joe
16:18:34 …For separating Clear Key into a separate spec, we probably need to look at that.
16:18:38 +q
16:18:48 joesteele: i wanted to know about bug 20960 - EME is not limited to video
16:18:58 ... whether there would be further comments on this
16:19:06 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20960
16:20:04 paulc: in some ways this is related to one of the other bugs
16:20:30 See also the more recent bug https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21037
16:21:03 paulc: this bug suggests not using DRM and use IPSEC instead
16:21:16 ... i think this is partially related to what content is sent over the wire
16:21:46 ... they are concerned about encrypting general HTML content across the wire
16:21:49 q+
16:21:50 q+
16:22:18 ack glenn
16:22:23 glenn: on the ClearKey bug, it proposes two things
16:22:30 ... make ClearKey a separate spec
16:22:36 ... also not make it mandatory
16:22:39 Discussing bug: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016
16:22:44 jdsmith has joined #html-media
16:22:49 paulc: do you have an opinion?
16:23:00 glenn: i think it should be included in the spec - don't see why not
16:23:07 ... open on the issue of mandatory or optional
16:23:14 +[Microsoft]
16:23:15 ... think we should recommend it
16:23:16 -Mark_Watson
16:23:20 ... could lower from MUST to SHOULD
16:23:21 ack Mark_V
16:23:38 Mark_Vickers: on 20960 - don't understand what specific thing they mean
16:23:43 +Mark_Watson
16:24:01 ... it is the case that some proposals include data alongside media - could include captions for example
16:24:13 ... so yes could include data encrypted that could come out the other end
16:24:20 ... not sure what would be needed to make that not happen
16:24:25 ... this would be true of any codec
16:24:58 paulc: think comment says CDM could take data and transform into some other form of HTML
16:25:09 ... think what we need to do is to get more context
16:25:14 q-
16:25:19 Mark_Vickers: i agree
16:25:22 +q
16:25:37 paulc: if there is something in the spec that constrains this then that would handle it
16:26:07 joesteele: slightly different read: didn't say anything in the spec that says the CDM cannot put up UI of its own
16:26:17 MartinSoukup has joined #html-media
16:26:27 ... so i was reading that it said it could add some additional UI
16:26:43 ... based on data coming in - we don't explicitly prevent UI
16:26:44 q+
16:26:51 ack joe
16:27:05 +q
16:27:28 Adrian: Not trying to exclude discussion on the other bugs.
16:27:34 adrianba: didn't mean to suggest that other bugs have no merit - just that they are too vague and don'
16:27:36 ack adrian
16:27:39 + +1.613.287.aaee
16:27:44 s/don'/don't include a proposal/
16:27:49 zakim, aaee is me
16:27:49 +MartinSoukup; got it
16:28:01 glenn: since we don't define a way for CDM to receive UI events
16:28:14 ... but in general we don't prevent a UA from doing something like this
16:28:58 paulc: on the other bugs - some of them we asked for more information and we have the example of one here with little information
16:29:16 ... i'd like to be able to tell the co-chairs the status of each of these
16:29:29 ... and what the proposed outcome is
16:29:38 ... not sure how to do that without stepping through each one
16:29:47 +1 to that idea
16:29:51 ... any objections?
16:29:52 +1
16:29:54 +1
16:29:55 +1
16:30:08 paulc: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944
16:30:29 ... noted we propose to add text to the spec pointing out that this is a TBD
16:30:49 ... any objections to this way to move forward?
16:30:51 no objection to this being a TBD
16:31:09 paulc: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965
16:31:21 ... proposed same disposition?
16:31:38 ... add text to abstract or status saying this is outstanding question?
16:32:15 +q
16:32:41 paulc: in other business, noted PING call - markw has volunteered
16:32:46 ... does this bug cover the scope?
16:33:07 markw: yes, volunteered - not sure if this bug is the issue
16:33:16 ddorwin: got cross-posted to that group
16:33:34 paulc: propose that if people think there are privacy issues they should file bugs
16:33:39 q?
16:33:41 ack glenn
16:33:46 ack joe
16:34:02 joesteele: proposing to add some text to say that this is an outstanding issue
16:34:17 ... don't think we can make much progress until we can make a definitive statement
16:34:27 paulc: by progress do you mean to FPWD or after that
16:34:32 joesteele: i mean both
16:34:55 ... getting to CR is going to require a statement that most people are happy with
16:35:10 paulc: we don't know yet
16:35:25 joesteele: when you say this is TBD before or after FPWD?
16:35:33 paulc: currently before
16:35:58 "Note: It is an open issue whether and how the spec should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop. See Bug 20944."
16:36:24 paulc: would expect something similar for security/privacy
16:36:40 ... not sure where to put it - to me this probably belongs in status section
16:36:42 ... okay?
16:36:45 joesteele: okay
16:36:54 paulc: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20960
16:37:03 ... this is the one brought up before
16:37:10 ... what i'm hearing is that we need more information
16:37:17 yes
16:37:22 ... should treat this with NEEDSINFO
16:37:35 ... should start dialogue on this
16:37:56 joesteele: i can respond to the bug and see what Fred has to say
16:38:14 paulc: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20961
16:39:25 paulc: currently proposed in bug to close as non-issue for EME
16:39:55 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20961#c4
16:40:14 ... markw is proposing resolve as WONTFIX
16:40:30 ... recent comment
16:40:48 markw has joined #html-media
16:40:51 no objection
16:40:54 ... assuming no objection to this
16:41:02 paulc: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20962
16:41:09 ... depends on patented technology
16:41:18 +q
16:41:40 ... response is request to include CDM in spec so it falls under W3C terms
16:41:51 ... believe related to general question of CDM interop?
16:41:53 -q
16:41:57 q+
16:42:08 johnsim: i would interpret it that way
16:42:18 ack bob
16:43:00 BobLund: i don't know that i would interpret that way - question is that since CDM is under HTML WG then this would be within HTML WG IPR
16:43:02 q+
16:43:19 ... it's up to the browser manufacturer what they include - same as a codec that isn't RF
16:43:22 ack adrian
16:44:07 adrianba: the bug says that not being in the WG is the problem since it doesn't require W3C IPR policy
16:45:03 paulc: this bug is asking for more specification so that the IPR policy applies
16:45:20 glenn: i think it goes beyond that - fully specify all CDMs
16:45:27 ... not having the abstraction of a CDM
16:45:44 paulc: not hearing a definitive position
16:45:46 q+
16:46:02 ack adrian
16:46:16 +1 to Adrian's position
16:46:27 q+
16:46:33 Adrian: The EME spec proposes to abstract away the CDM and therefore there is simply disagreement here.
16:46:34 adrianba: i disagree with CDMs being defined - the purpose of the spec is to abstract CDMs away
16:46:45 ... don't think there is a compromise that works here
16:46:54 paulc: what you're proposing is WONTFIX?
16:46:58 +1
16:48:18 adrianba: i think the spec is covered by the patent policy and the parts deliberately out of scope are not
16:48:26 ack bob
16:48:37 ... i think someone could make a counter proposal if they like but that's not our goal with this spec
16:48:56 BobLund: i think the lack of a RF CDM implementation is a current thread of the discussion
16:49:19 ... if someone wants to offer a CDM proposal that is RF then we could consider adding it to the spec
16:49:20 +q
16:49:25 ... like we did with ClearKey
16:49:28 +q
16:49:43 ack glenn
16:49:49 q+
16:49:57 glenn: the open source issue is probably more important than the RF issue
16:49:58 -q
16:50:09 ack glenn
16:50:10 ack Mark
16:50:15