15:55:52 RRSAgent has joined #html-media
15:55:52 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-html-media-irc
15:55:54 RRSAgent, make logs public
15:55:54 Zakim has joined #html-media
15:55:56 Zakim, this will be 63342
15:55:56 ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
15:55:57 Meeting: HTML Media Task Force Teleconference
15:55:57 Date: 26 February 2013
15:56:16 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Feb/0111.html
15:56:21 Chair: Paul Cotton
15:56:27 rrsagent, make minutes
15:56:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/02/26-html-media-minutes.html adrianba
15:56:34 rrsagent, make logs public
15:56:50 HTML_WG()11:00AM has now started
15:56:57 + +1.425.269.aaaa
15:57:17 joesteele has joined #html-media
15:58:03 +ddorwin
15:58:09 ddorwin has joined #html-media
15:59:24 +joesteele
15:59:27 -joesteele
15:59:48 +joesteele
15:59:58 +pal
16:00:34 markw has joined #html-media
16:01:16 paulc has joined #html-media
16:01:51 joining on the phone in a second
16:02:09 +Mark_Watson
16:02:23 +[Microsoft]
16:02:24 Zakim, Mark_Watson is markw
16:02:24 +markw; got it
16:02:38 zakim, [Microsoft] has paulc
16:02:38 +paulc; got it
16:03:29 +[Microsoft.a]
16:03:35 zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:03:35 +adrianba; got it
16:03:47 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Feb/0111.html
16:04:36 BobLund has joined #html-media
16:05:11 + +1.303.503.aabb
16:05:29 zakim, aabb is boblund
16:05:29 +boblund; got it
16:05:31 zakim, aabb is me
16:05:31 sorry, BobLund, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:06:04 scribe: joesteele
16:06:12 chair: paulc
16:06:35 trackbot-ng, start telcon
16:06:37 RRSAgent, make logs public
16:06:39 Zakim, this will be 63342
16:06:39 ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()11:00AM scheduled to start 6 minutes ago
16:06:40 Meeting: HTML Media Task Force Teleconference
16:06:40 Date: 26 February 2013
16:06:59 TOPIC: #5 progression to FPWD
16:07:05 jdsmith has joined #html-media
16:07:13 Zakim, who is speaking?
16:07:13 sorry, joesteele, I don't know what conference this is
16:07:24 Zakim, this will be HTML-Medai
16:07:24 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, joesteele
16:07:28 Zakim, this will be HTML-Media
16:07:28 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, joesteele
16:07:52 paulc: Topic is bugs discussed during previous meeting
16:08:01 TOPIC: Bugs discussed last time
16:08:29 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944
16:08:33 Bug #20944
16:08:37 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944
16:08:43 paulc: Is this done?
16:09:05 paulc: adrian called this out? any more to do?
16:09:10 adrian: that was it
16:09:19 paulc; Bug 20960
16:09:27 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20960
16:09:37 paulc: EME not limited to video
16:09:48 paulc: lots of discussion
16:10:00 markw: not sure I have made progres
16:10:14 +q
16:10:25 markw: topic is roving across several bugs
16:10:50 markw: general theme is that EME is not constrained by the spec
16:10:58 ... not sure how to address this
16:11:16 ... the intention is for browsers to place constraints, but not sure how to express
16:11:49 ... because we are not locking it down -- CDM can implement anything
16:11:53 ... that is the argument
16:11:56 q+
16:12:10 markw: certainly possible, what can we do?
16:12:26 paulc: doesn't look like we can close down
16:12:45 q?
16:13:00 paulc: we can add some general spec
16:13:07 ack joe
16:13:55 ack adrian
16:14:04 joesteele: not sure we can address because the questions are not well-formed
16:14:06 "This proposal extends HTMLMediaElement providing APIs to control playback of protected content."
16:14:21 adrianba: this line specifies what the spec is for
16:14:42 ... we can't do anything in the spec to control what the user agent can do
16:14:49 ... we can only say what the spec is for
16:15:05 paulc: mark this as "Won't Fix" with what Adrian says
16:15:27 ..." we believe the spec is constrained to video elemtns and anything else is out of scope"
16:15:34 Bug 20961
16:15:46 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20961
16:16:34 paulc: Bugs says -- please include scope of priviledges CDM require so we can evaluate
16:17:03 q+
16:17:18 paulc: do we agree with his statement?
16:17:18 ack dd
16:17:38 ddorwin: has been a discussion of what DRM is and whether it is targeted by this spec
16:17:49 ... his argument is that the most limiting case is what is proposed
16:17:58 ... we should not be talking about the other cases
16:18:08 johnsim has joined #html-media
16:18:15 paulc: Mark says this is clearly not required in comment #4
16:18:18 q+
16:18:42 markw: reporters keeps coming back to claim only full DRM is supported
16:19:36 paulc: I think we should resolve as "Won't Fix" and repeat Marks statement. His comment #4 is the deifnitive answer
16:19:45 s/deifnitive/definitive/
16:19:46 q?
16:20:05 ack adrian
16:20:31 adrianba: we decided last week to resolve one of the bugs as not to define the CDM in the EME but abstract that away
16:20:45 ... someone else can define that
16:21:05 paulc: we decided to make that dependent on all of the other bugs
16:21:19 ... several of the bugs were going to be marked as dependent
16:21:30 paulc: did someone do that?
16:21:53 adrianba; we decided that we would not decide the patented technology bug that way
16:22:10 ... CDM specifics are outside the scope of EME
16:22:24 s/adrianba;/adrianba:/
16:22:46 paulc: suggesting we should use the ame style resolution for 61?
16:22:50 adrianba: yes
16:23:01 s/ame style/same style/
16:23:07 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20962
16:23:08 paulc: moving on
16:23:15 Bug 20962
16:23:23 adrianba: resolving as we go
16:23:27 Bug 20983
16:23:45 s/Bug 20983/Bug 20963/
16:23:57 paulc: made dependent on 61 and 44
16:24:06 ... no discussion needed
16:24:12 Bug 20965
16:24:23 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965
16:24:41 s/on 61 and 44/on 20961 and 20944/
16:24:51 Bug 20966
16:25:06 paulc: please split ClearKey out
16:25:09 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016
16:25:40 adrianba: asked Glen to respond and he did
16:25:57 ddorwin: would be ok with "should" but it is already included
16:26:11 paulc: how should we resolve?
16:26:35 paulc: could mark and resolved to force the comment
16:26:46 ... or we could change the MUST to a SHOULD
16:27:03 adrianba: don't think that makes a substantial difference
16:27:17 ... happy with the spec as it is written today
16:27:27 ... could change SHOULD to MAY
16:27:51 ddorwin: this should be discussed as a normal bug (for normative text)
16:27:59 paulc: do we have an advocate for MAY?
16:28:14 adrianba: not me, no change advocated
16:28:55 pal: would this resolve the issue?
16:29:02 paulc: probably not
16:29:18 ... would meet most of his requirement by making it a MAY
16:29:37 pal: we can ask Henri in the thread if this will resolve it
16:30:06 paulc: don't ask permission, ask forgiveness - let's resolve and he can comment if this is a problem
16:30:21 ... unless there is not concensus to change it
16:30:38 q+
16:30:40 joesteele: I think optional is good
16:30:52 paulc: does anyone object to the change?
16:30:55 q?
16:31:06 no objections voiced
16:31:28 adrian
16:31:29 paulc: resolve as WONT FIX and the group agrees
16:31:44 adrianba: we should resolve later once we have implementation experience
16:32:04 BobLund has joined #html-media
16:32:08 paulc: trying to encourage action on this
16:32:17 ... any objection to RESOLVE LATER?
16:32:29 ... add the comment about implementation experience
16:32:47 ... no objections
16:32:51 Bug 20964
16:33:06 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20964
16:33:10 EME Supports content that depends on server with finit life
16:33:18 s/finit /finite/
16:33:36 paulc: was marked as dup but unmarked by reporter
16:33:54 q+
16:34:46 adrianba: look at the end
16:35:33 adrianba: should just close this. Was agreed that the bugs title is a true statement
16:35:45 paulc: resolve WONT FIX as this is not a bug
16:35:51 s/adrianba/markw/
16:35:55 ... any disucssion?
16:36:04 Bug 20966
16:36:15 s/disucssion/discussion/
16:36:20 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20966
16:36:39 paulc: looks like a dup of 20965
16:37:26 paulc: he agrees that is 20965 is resolved this bug is no longer relevant
16:38:07 I think we could do something about 20965
16:38:08 20965 has a comment added to the SOTD
16:38:16 2096
16:38:21 pal: no discussion about this bug yet
16:38:27 oops. ignore.
16:38:30 paulc: added as an open issue
16:38:37 ... treat this one as the same
16:38:52 ... can we treat them as siblings?
16:39:19 pal: don't understand what the 20966 is saying
16:39:48 markw: it seems to be saying that for EME to work you have to lose privacy and spec should explain that instead of glossing over
16:39:48 s/pal/johnsim
16:41:36 q+
16:41:59 paulc: let's treat this as 20965 for now, other folks can add comments for more clarity
16:42:02 ack adrian
16:42:12 q-
16:42:14 ack joes
16:42:35 adrianba: comment that I added said this is an open issue
16:42:59 ... is the proposal to add this bug to that list?
16:43:03 paulc: yes
16:43:25 ddorwin: should we change the title of the bug?
16:43:55 paulc: not sure we understand the bug enough to do that yet -- clarify what trivialize means in this context
16:44:31 johnsim: need to get that clarification
16:44:44 paulc: can you draw that out of the reporter John?
16:44:48 johnsim: yes
16:44:59 Bug 20967
16:45:24 EME does not allow independent implementation
16:45:33 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20967
16:45:42 paulc: this was re-opened
16:46:16 paulc: he wants an independent implementation of the CDM
16:46:38 pal: nothing in the spec that precludes this, specifically with a shim
16:47:10 ... if there is something that prevents the shim being written we should know about that
16:47:12 q+
16:47:39 paulc: should we use that argument in this argument?
16:47:52 ack joe
16:48:33 q+
16:48:38 ack markw
16:48:48 q+
16:49:05 markw: we have said that CDM can use platform capabilities, the counters that come back for that are
16:49:15 ... 1. how are they defined and how
16:49:21 ... 2. how do I get access
16:49:34 q+
16:49:41 ... 2. ok for proprietary platforms but what about open source?
16:49:43 ack bob
16:49:59 boblund: nothing in EME that requires a shim to use platform capabilities
16:50:07 ... could be part of the user agent?
16:50:17 markw: could be part of the UA
16:50:37 boblund: premise of the bug is wrong then, the UA could provide this
16:50:40 q+
16:50:43 ack pal
16:50:54 pal: separate these issues, issue of the bug itself
16:51:14 ... does not allow independent implementation -- bug can be resolved purely on that basis
16:51:21 ... EME clearly does not disallow this
16:51:34 ack john
16:51:35 ... could explore the issue of how EME works with platform
16:51:58 johnsim: independent implementation is the question here?
16:52:22 ... he is saying noone but the implementers would use this - but this is false
16:52:31 q+
16:52:57 johnsim: the phrase independent implementation is the meat of the bug
16:53:03 ... anyone could implement a CDM
16:53:28 .. but commercial distributors use a lmited number of CDMs
16:53:42 ... since anyone can implement, the premise of the bug is wrong
16:53:50 s/lmited/limited/
16:54:27 adrianba: I think we can state that we propose the prior resolution that the CDM implementation is out of scope
16:55:00 paulc: in the past we have use WONT FIX or NEEDS INFO
16:55:22 adrianba: WONT FIX or NEEDS INFO works
16:55:29 Bug 20968
16:55:33 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20968
16:55:51 paulc: this has been re-opened
16:56:53 pal: 2 aspects to this bug
16:57:18 ... bug as filed we cannot take action on without specific actions requested - could not resolve on that basis
16:58:02 ... more generally people interested in how EME could be implemented could be addressed by this group, but could be indepedent
16:58:11 paulc: open another bug?
16:58:30 pal: could get there based on the email threads we have seen - not another bug
16:58:45 q+
16:58:49