HTML Media Task Force Teleconference -- 17 Sep 2013

<trackbot> Date: 17 September 2013

<paulc> Regrets from John Simmons and Cyril Concolato

<paulc> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Sep/0019.html

Roll call

<paulc> Adrian is not yet on the phone

Previous meeting minutes

<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Sep/0019.html

<paulc> Paul plans to start following up with individual items between meetings.

<paulc> For example see my attempt to track ACTION-25: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Sep/0022.html

HTML WG F2F meeting, Nov 14-15, Shenzen, China

<paulc> I noticed last week people were asking about an media agenda.

<paulc> F2F agenda is http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2013-11-Agenda

<paulc> EME and MSE on Thu probably in the morning: http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2013-11-Agenda#Day_1

<paulc> I would expect that we will discuss at least:

<paulc> a) outstanding EME bugs

<paulc> b) open MSE Last Call comments

<paulc> c) discuss MSE testing for possible CR

<paulc> d) possible joint meetings with other IGs or WGs

<ddorwin> paulc: You can be sure that we'll address all last call comments.

<ddorwin> … For EME it would be good to have a list of topics for discussion.

EME Heartbeat publication

<adrianba> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media-wd.html

<paulc> This was in Adrian's input queue. He was away on family business.

<paulc> Working on getting pubrules and formatting problems.

<adrianba> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/

<scribe> scribe: joesteele

paulc: Adrian - is this doc ready for the task force to approve the candidate hearbeat?

adrianba: think the task force should review to see if they are ok with the current state
... yes it is ready, but don't move to display in this meeting
... changelog is in mercurial

paulc: you mentioned bug resolved? can we get a link?

adrianba: link is in IRC above
... 21854, 21203, and some other changes around creating the working draft doc

paulc: change made 2 weeks ago are in this as well?

adrianba: yes

paulc: how long do folks need to review? one week, 48 hours?

joesteele: one week would be good IMO

ddorwin: a week would be good

<markw> +1 to a week

ddorwin: not attending next week though

paulc: let's go for one week then

<paulc> Paul will start a Media TF CfC on the candidate EME WD to last for one week. This will be done via email since EME does not meet next week.

pauc: will do after this mtg

ddorwin: looking through the doc, do we want an issue at top of the section 9.2 (ISOBMFF)

<ddorwin> We have open bug: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17673

ddorwin: might be thought as final otherwise

paulc: Adrian can you add that pointer

adrianba: yes, can do today

paulc: any other comments right now?

EME schedule for working group charter

<paulc> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2013/

paulc: this is the old charter
... in milestone section, there is a row in the spec table for FWPD, CR, etc for MSE but not EME
... been asked what reasonable target dates would be for EME by the working group
... dates for MSE are Q3 2013 for LC, Q2 2014 for PR, nearly a year for next step
... when do people think EME will be in LC?

adrianba: would like to see it happen by Q4 2013

<paulc> Last Call: Q42013

<paulc> CR: Q22014

paulc: would it make sense that it would take two quarters to get through LC then? CR in Q2 2014

adrianba: fine with that

<markw> seems reasonable to me

<paulc> PR: Q1 2015

paulc: that would be PR Q 2015
... might be faster but need to be pessimistic

<paulc> Rec: Q1 2015

paulc: this lines up with MSE

<ddorwin> Do we have to solve all the existing bugs by then? We have some big items on security, privacy, and interop.

<Zakim> ddorwin, you wanted to ask do we have to solve all the existing bugs by then? We have some big items on security, privacy, and interop.

ddorwin: might be optimistic
... 13 weeks plus a F2F in between

paulc: not overly optimistic but need to work

pal: David, do you feel there are bugs that are intractable? or just editing time?

ddorwin: some difficult to solve issues, some are just editing and decisions have been made
... there are reasons some of these are left

pal: can you identify them?

ddorwin: state machine should let us close a few more

paulc: David you asked for topics in the F2F - maybe you can triage those bugs
... discussions are linked

Review ACTION items

ACTION-25?

<trackbot> ACTION-25 -- John Simmons to And John S to work on corner cases for bug 17673 -- due 2013-09-17 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/25

paulc: John Simmons is away so I sent him an email

<paulc> See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Sep/0022.html

paulc: we need to make progress on this, so I will be following up via email

ACTION-31?

<trackbot> ACTION-31 -- David Dorwin to Propose text to resolve bug 18515 -- due 2013-09-10 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/31

ddorwin: this was discussed, but there are higher priority issue we should resolve first

paulc: can we change the date to 2 or 4 weeks from now?

ddorwin: we should push it out

ACTION due 2013-10-15

<trackbot> Error finding 'due'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/users>.

ACTION-31 due 2013-10-15

<trackbot> Set ACTION-31 Propose text to resolve bug 18515 due date to 2013-10-15.

ACTION-35?

<trackbot> ACTION-35 -- Paul Cotton to Inform privacy ig who we spoke to in feb about bug 22910 -- due 2013-08-20 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/35

paulc: have not done it yet

ACTION-35 due 2013-09-18

<trackbot> Set ACTION-35 Inform privacy ig who we spoke to in feb about bug 22910 due date to 2013-09-18.

EME status and bugs

subtopic: Editors draft

<paulc> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html

<paulc> Updated Sep 17

paulc: lets go to the list of outstanding bugs
... 18

<paulc> http://tinyurl.com/7tfambo

paulc: David you were suggesting a priority?
... can you give us those (high, hard, no) priorities?
... just edit the search

joesteele: and paste the updated link here please
... low hanging fruit left?

ddorwin: discussed the 22909 last week

paulc: 20965 depends on 22909

<ddorwin> Security: 22909; Privacy: 22910.

ddorwin: content from 22910 was added to section 8
... that is RESOLVED FIXED
... the question is does it need more work?
... how do we want to track these?
... still need to do some work on security
... do we want to just track the master bug and close the others?

<paulc> 20965 depends on 22909

ddorwin: proposal is to keep 22909 and 22910 open and close the master bug

<paulc> 22910 blocks 17202 20965 and 21869

<ddorwin> master bug 20965

paulc: believe that means we would do the discussion in those bugs 22909 and 22910 instead
... this goes against what the master bug says

ddorwin: we discussed that two weeks ago that these are not necessarily hierarchy order
... nothing more to do in 20965

paulc: so you are saying security is 22909

ddorwin: yes

paulc: and privacy is 22910?

ddorwin: yes

paulc: so who is on point for these?
... both are assigned to Adrian

adrianba: not assigned to me
... that state of 22909 is new and the other is resolved
... my approach is to do what what is the bug and check it in
... if someone has a problem with the content they can either reopen or add a new bug

paulc: David you said we need more work on privacy? willing to take an action there?

ddorwin: need more contributions, including from the Privacy IG to know what we need to consider
... don't think any one person can write this up themselves
... we need input on these two bugs

paulc: who is the Privacy IG? do you have names that the chair can contact?
... or scrub through the bugs and minutes?
... this is ACTION-35
... do we want their feedback on both or just the privacy one?

adrianba: no objections to feedback on anything

ddorwin: don't have anything in mind specifically for security
... implementors should comment
... 22901 has some information

paulc: originally glenn raised 22909 presumably because of other bugs

ddorwin: think these were to replace other bugs

paulc: so 22909 blocks several of the same bugs 22910 blocks, but also 22901
... seems like this area is blocking about half the bugs
... 22901 is reopened as well
... I don't have these 6-7 bugs in my cache, I think you have said in order to make progress on 22910 we need input from Privacy IG
... not sure what we need to make progress on the 22909 and its companion bugs

<paulc> Security: 20965 depends on 22909 which in turn blocks 17202 20965 21869 and 22901

adrianba: we have a bunch of bugs filed by people who are not on this call, 20965 is a good example
... Glenn filed two bugs one about privacy and one about security on creating these sections
... made a proposal for some of the privacy concerns and that bug was closed
... we also discussed his proposal for some of the security proposals, but we decided this was not the kind of thing we needed to include
... because more about efficacy and not about security
... have not had anybody provide feedback on the security concerns so we can address them

paulc: 20965 was higlighted in the status section of the document, still there?

adrianba: still there

paulc: does it describe that we have a security section that folks should comment on?

adrianba: we don't have any security concerns at the moment being highlighted

paulc: have you updated the status section for 20965 with what is currently in the document that pertains to tat bug
... need that for the heartbeat

adrianba: no, as that is in the bug
... someone could propose but did not think it was necessary

paulc: material in the draft that it is an open issue -- see bug 20965 - is this supposed to be privacy or security or both?

adrianba: we have not had any security suggestions
... when we added it was with what we believed the bug was, which was privacy
... we can add more text if someone can suggest text to add

ddorwin: latest draft has the link to 22909 - should we put issue blocks in section 7 and 8
... if we are replacing the master bug we should at least link to those instead

<markw> I am planning to look at the security and privacy sections and make some suggestions

adrianba: that makes sense if we accept your proposal

paulc: so david proposal would be to mark section 8 by referring to 22910
... and change the status section to point to both bugs 22909 and 22910 as a substitute for 20965
... david you referred to ISSUE-3 is this a real issue?

ddorwin: 3rd issue in the doc

<paulc> Proposal:

paulc: proposal on the table is to close bug 20965
... and concentrate efforts on 22909 for security and 22910 for privacy

<paulc> 1. Close bug 20965 and concentrate our efforts on 22909 (Security) and 22910 (privacy)

<paulc> 2. Reflect these changes in the SOTD of the candidate WD and in Sections 8 and 9

paulc: any discussion

adrianba: glenn seemed to be raising this more as a procedural starting point
... not that he had actual comments

paulc: we are out of time

<paulc> No objections to the above proposal.

paulc: we now have a cluster of security and privacy bugs
... David can you send a note to the WG that identified another potential working set of bugs?
... either lower priority

ddorwin: yes

paulc: talk to you all in two weeks

- DRAFT -

HTML Media Task Force Teleconference

17 Sep 2013

Attendees

Contents

Roll call

Previous meeting minutes

HTML WG F2F meeting, Nov 14-15, Shenzen, China

EME Heartbeat publication

EME schedule for working group charter

Review ACTION items

EME status and bugs

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output