W3C

Web and TV Interest Group Teleconference

16 Oct 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Kaz, Bin, Daniel, Sheau, Olivier, Giri, wyhun
Regrets
Giuseppe, JC, Mark
Chair
Olivier
Scribe
Daniel

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 16 October 2013

<olivier> Meeting: Web and TV IG - Media APIs TF Teleconference

<olivier> -> Proposed agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2013Oct/0038.html

<scribe> scribenick: ddavis

<scribe> scribe: Daniel

Review of action items: https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/agenda

olivier: Action 146, update use cases 6 & 7 has been done, no objections.

<olivier> close action-146

<trackbot> Closed action-146.

<olivier> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Requirements

olivier: Action 147, edit requirements doc & link to spreadsheet - done.

<olivier> close action-147

<trackbot> Closed action-147.

olivier: Action 140, Sheau to split service & device discovery in requirements doc.

<olivier> close action-140

<trackbot> Closed action-140.

Sheau: Done

<olivier> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Requirements#Network_Selection

olivier: Action 141, requirement on network selection.

gmandyam: I just need to add hyperlinks on the Google spreadsheet

<olivier> close action-141

<trackbot> Closed action-141.

olivier: If we're happy, let's close 141
... That's all the action items for this Task Force

Review of gap analysis

<olivier> * Gap Analysis on Requirement 9 "Context-based and targeted Service Aggregation" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2013Oct/0028.html

<olivier> * Gap Analysis on Requirement 17 "Tuner Control" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2013Oct/0029.html

<olivier> * Gap Analysis on Requirement 18 "Channel Identification" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2013Oct/0031.html

<olivier> * Gap Analysis on Requirement 19 "Content Streaming" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2013Oct/0032.html

olivier: There were a number of mails on the list about the gap analysis
... Requirements 9, 17, 18, 19 had good suggestions of gaps
... All specs mentioned in those requirement analysis are not W3C specs.
... We could look at those specs to see if they do what we need and whether we need to add features to the web platform.

<olivier> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2013Oct/0028.html

olivier: Let's look at GA for Req 9.
... Related spec is Hybrid broadcastbroadband TV
... There are a number of gaps. ETRI people, please could you talk more about it?

skim13: The existing spec has similar features to the application we've defined.

<olivier> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/102700_102799/102796/01.02.01_60/ts_102796v010201p.pdf

skim13: Maybe we can re-use some of what's in the spec

olivier: So the recommendation is to re-use some of the concepts, but we'll need to see how that relates to W3C-based web platform architecture.
... Is there any volunteer to look into these features?

<scribe> ACTION: ddavis to look into what features of existing non-W3C specs can be re-used in web platform for Gap Analysis of Req 9 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-152 - Look into what features of existing non-w3c specs can be re-used in web platform for gap analysis of req 9 [on Daniel Davis - due 2013-10-23].

<olivier> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2013Oct/0029.html

olivier: Moving on to req 17
... There is a related spec that seems to have this feature already

kaz: Does the action item for Daniel include other specs as well, e.g. NHK's Hybridcast, not just HbbTV?

olivier: Possibly. Probably a good idea to start with just one and see how we go.

<inserted> kaz: ok. So Daniel can start with HbbTV

olivier: Either we don't do anything or we need to integrate something.
... E.g. GA for Req 17, the feature in the existing spec should probably be replicated at the JavaScript level.

gmandyam: Is there are requirement for a specific format for ESG? Is it left up to the service implementation?

olivier: Good question. I think what we were talking about is that ESG is more of an implementation that uses several of the requirements we have
... E.g. exposing channels and controlling them.

gmandyam: I agree with that. We support ATSC 3.0 which has different requirements.

<Sheau> +q

gmandyam: I'm not seeing any direct dependencies on any particular ESG so I think we're OK.

olivier: maybe we should clarify this when we publish our findings.
... We might want to make it clear in our use cases.
... The Tablet EPG is somewhat similar.

<olivier> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases

<olivier> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases#3._.22Use_Case_Three_.E2.80.93_Tablet_EPG.22

<olivier> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvACjV6qSvmxdEctdjYwa2JOalZLOG10elE1LVRZNlE#gid=0

olivier: The EPG use case is covered by a number of requirements.
... That has been our approach so far - EPG/ESG are served by our requirements.

Sheau: Some of these topics are probably going to be worked on by ATSC 3.0 as well.
... So this gap analysis is looking back rather than looking sideways. Other organisations are surely working on these issues.
... I believe we have a liaison with some of these groups already.
... What should we do?

gmandyam: With the ATSC, I'm putting together a draft with a listing of the relevant requirements for v. 3.0.
... ATSC has already prepared a liaison, not sent yet.
... Starting with the gap analysis on the HbbTV doc will satisfy a lot of the ATSC requirements, this group should receive a liaison to take care of this.

Sheau: We're already very active on ATSC 3.0
... Maybe we can expedite things or explore further

gmandyam: These liaisons are being created by the ATSC S34 group which deals with the presentation layer.

olivier: Would we, as a group consider HbbTV or ATSC standards good enough or would we need another specification elsewhere to tackle these requirements.
... I would say as long as there's a way for us to refer to those works in progress, we should say in our analysis when we know of similar work elsewhere.
... It doesn't seem honest and useful to just ignore similar external work.

Sheau: I wonder whether we would, through the liaison, put forward our desire.
... Insofar as ATSC falls within an HTML/browser environment, that falls inside HTTP protocol and we should ensure there is minimal divergence between the two groups.
... If ATSC starts using HTTP or some W3C protocol, we need to be aligned.

<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to count IPTVF-J as well, because they already have an official liaison with W3C

kaz: We should include IPTV Forum Japan as well.

olivier: Does OIPF count as well?
... Should we have a liaison with OIPF as well?

kaz: We do have a liaison with OIPF as well

<kaz> Liaison table

olivier: Let's move on - looking at the spreadsheet

<olivier> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvACjV6qSvmxdEctdjYwa2JOalZLOG10elE1LVRZNlE#gid=1

olivier: There are a number of existing W3C specs, at different stages of progress, and the spreadsheet tries to match them with our requirements.
... We should review and edit them a bit.
... In column G, Giuseppe asked the point of including this - it's not a specification.
... I'd suggest dropping this because we have Media Source Extensions to cover this.

+1

+2

<Sheau> +1

olivier: OK, done
... NSD API is the most worked-on column so far

ddavis: I had a hard time understanding the difference between "aggregation of services" and "service discovery"

olivier: One way we can say that is that NSD allows you to aggregate with some work by content creators on top.
... I think there are two meanings we should show in the table.
... One is that the spec doesn't cover it but it should (e.g. red cross), the other is that we're not sure (e.g. a yellow question mark)
... So a red cross would mean the requirement is not possible with the current version of that spec.
... At the end of this process, we should have a number of requirements for different groups - the red crosses would indicate this.
... No objections - let's go with that symbol/colour choice.
... Giuseppe says, in row 8, column B, he doesn't think NSD is in scope to handle authentication.

ddavis: Security is being discussed re. NSD API with the DAP WG, so some kind of authentication could be being looked at.

olivier: Let's put it as a question mark.
... Tuner control, could this be covered by a different spec and not NSD API?

gmandyam: The NSD API is meant to cover UPnP, Bonjour, etc.
... I thought tuner control was something more general than that, so I don't know why you'd want to shoehorn that into NSD.

ddavis: I agree

olivier: Let's say there's some doubt as to whether this is the right place for it.
... Given the difference in opinion, this is a question mark.
... Given the time, let's move on to column G which I've worked on.
... Maybe we can then assign different columns to different people.
... Column G is EME.
... At the bottom of the list of requirements, row 25 & 26, EME is all about content protection.
... Looking at the spec, it seems that offline protection could be taken care of by EME.
... EME only provides an interface to the content decryption module (CDM).
... The CDM could be online or offline, so I think EME covers this requirement.

Sheau: I'd like to confirm that with Mark Vickers.

olivier: I sent an email about this earlier which maybe Mark can answer. I think it should be a "yes" but let's put it as a question mark for now.
... I believe EME can also be used for device authentication (row 8)
... Regarding row 11, Local Access Control, I don't know if this is what EME should be able to do.
... So I'm putting that as a question mark
... Would anyone like to commit to looking into a particular spec, for example WebRTC?

gmandyam: I can look into it, but in what context?
... WebRTC is a peer-to-peer tech - how does it relate to TV?

ddavis: Something like the "Device-to-device content transfer" could be relevant.

gmandyam: There could be issues with content protection there.

<olivier> ACTION: gmandyam to look through WebRTC column in gap analysis document - due in 2 weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-153 - Look through webrtc column in gap analysis document [on Giridhar Mandyam - due 2013-10-30].

olivier: There's already been an entry for Web Storage. Do we have a volunteer to look at Web Storage and File API together please?

Sheau: Generally we would want a qualification who knows something about the particular spec, right?

olivier: Yes, even for a first pass, an educated guess would be good.

Sheau: I would volunteer for either web Storage or Media Source Extensions, but not within the next 2 weeks

<olivier> ACTION: Sheau to look through Web Storage column in the gap analysis doc - due in 4 weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-154 - Look through web storage column in the gap analysis doc [on Sheau Ng - due 2013-11-13].

olivier: The goal is to have most of it done by the time we meet at TPAC

ddavis: We should note in the spreadsheet who's looking at each spec and whether the analysis has been done.

olivier: I'll do that at the top of each column.
... Any other specs that someone could take a look at? Would be good to get about a half done.
... You don't have to be an expert - just read through the spec a bit to understand it roughly.

<olivier> ACTION: olivier to look through MSE column in gap analysis [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-155 - Look through mse column in gap analysis [on Olivier Thereaux - due 2013-10-23].

<olivier> ACTION: bin to look through server-sent events columns in gap analysis doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-156 - Look through server-sent events columns in gap analysis doc [on Bin Hu - due 2013-10-23].

<olivier> ACTION: bin to look through push api column in gap analysis doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-157 - Look through push api column in gap analysis doc [on Bin Hu - due 2013-10-23].

olivier: Any other volunteers for another column?

ddavis: Manifest for Web Applications is probably not going to be worked on further.

<olivier> ACTION: sheau to look through manifest/appcache column, to be used as input for service worker - due in 4 weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-158 - Look through manifest/appcache column, to be used as input for service worker [on Sheau Ng - due 2013-11-13].

<olivier> ACTIOM: sheau to look through messaging api column - due in 4 weeks

<olivier> ACTION: sheau to look through messaging api column - due in 4 weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-159 - Look through messaging api column [on Sheau Ng - due 2013-11-13].

ddavis: We can see what Manifest for Web Apps covers already, but we probably can't get new features added to it. Instead, they may be added to ServiceWorker.

olivier: Thanks everyone. We have some good coverage there and can use the mailing list for me.

<olivier> ddavis: the W3C Business Development Team - we are interested in work of the IG. put a summary into a slide deck

<olivier> ... and pointed to UC&R documents

<scribe> ACTION: ddavis to forward slide deck of use cases to TV IG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-160 - Forward slide deck of use cases to tv ig [on Daniel Davis - due 2013-10-23].

Next meeting

olivier: Next meeting is on 30th October. Is that OK with everyone?
... No objections so that's confirmed.
... That's all for today - let's continue on the mailing list.
... Thanks everyone, have a good morning/day/evening/night.

<kaz> [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: bin to look through push api column in gap analysis doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: bin to look through server-sent events columns in gap analysis doc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: ddavis to forward slide deck of use cases to TV IG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: ddavis to look into what features of existing non-W3C specs can be re-used in web platform for Gap Analysis of Req 9 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: gmandyam to look through WebRTC column in gap analysis document - due in 2 weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: olivier to look through MSE column in gap analysis [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: sheau to look through manifest/appcache column, to be used as input for service worker - due in 4 weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: sheau to look through messaging api column - due in 4 weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: Sheau to look through Web Storage column in the gap analysis doc - due in 4 weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-webtv-minutes.html#action03]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-10-16 14:20:02 $