Gap analysis

[RESOURCES]
Sheau's write-up: http://www.w3.org/mid/CEC217DF.B760%25sheau.ng@nbcuni.com
Daniel's write-up: http://www.w3.org/mid/529EC494.4070206@w3.org
Louay's write-up: http://www.w3.org/mid/3958197A5E3C084AB60E2718FE0723D4741498FB@FEYNMAN.fokus.fraunhofer.de
Gap analysis table:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvACjV6qSvmxdEctdjYwa2JOalZLOG10elE1LVRZNlE#gid=1

Sheau: http://www.w3.org/mid/CEC217DF.B760%25sheau.ng@nbcuni.com
... web storage
... req 8 recommendation is X
... req 21

Sheau: messaging API

Sheau: comments?
... Manifest for Web Apps

(sorry for not scribing, my line connexion is too bad)

Sheau: comments?

Louay: http://www.w3.org/mid/3958197A5E3C084AB60E2718FE0723D4741498FB@FEYNMAN.fokus.fraunhofer.de

Daniel: http://www.w3.org/mid/529EC494.4070206@w3.org

jc: we have two emails
... from Daniel and Louay with proposed resolutions
... any comments on these?
... may be wait a few days to give people a chance to read these emails

<kaz> Louay's writeup: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2013Dec/0010.html

jcverdie: there are a few remaining ? in web crypto

yosuke: right, we need clarification on req side

<kaz> Google Doc Gap Analysis table

jcverdie: how can we get some comments?

Sheau: trace back to reqs

http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Requirements#Device_Authentication_Mechanism

yosuke: we could use Web crypto for authentication but it depends on the implementation of Web browsers

gmandyam: web crypto is mainly sw implementation
... such mechanism is much more than what web crypto would deliver
... web crypto unlike EME is not deeply HW integrated

yosuke: different opinion
... web crypto is interface to other entities (middleware or hw)

gmandyam: on android we're not going to open any hw interface to the browser
... I would put a red cross

jcverdie: does it mean that we need to leave it or move it to a different group?

Bin_Hu: +1 giri
... red cross
... or blank if we see it as not a sufficient solution (web crypto)

yosuke: i don't think webcrypto is a good solution neither

<gmandyam> To clarify: My parent org. (Qualcomm) has concluded that Web Crypto has no HW dependencies, and requires nothing from the HW to support. Therefore the working assumption is that it will be a SW-only implementation. Device auth. is not possible.

yosuke: if we want to find a good solution for device authentication, we need to put a red cross
... if we just want a solution, I think we can use webcrypto anyway

<Bin_Hu> Based on Giri's more information, I suggest to put "blank", i.e. N/A for REQ 6 Device Authentication

Sheau: ???

<Bin_Hu> ... to put Red X for REQ 5.2 App Authentication

if anyone can hear Sheau properly please scribe him, I can't hear him clearly

Bin_Hu: device auth => blank
... App authentication => red cross
... or a blank if it's really not applicable

+1 Bin

Sheau: +1 but leave a note somewhere to give ourselves action to identify where Device Authentication Rq can or should be met.

Bin_Hu: Giri's comment should be captured as final comment on the spreadsheet

jcverdie: Yosuke can do this?

<scribe> ACTION: Bin to capture Giri's comment and finalize "?" in Web Crypto [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/04-webtv-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-177 - Capture giri's comment and finalize "?" in web crypto [on Bin Hu - due 2013-12-11].

jcverdie: should we go through Daniel comments of we keep it offline?
... Service Workers. kaz, had you a chance to start this?
... next week for both of them

Use Cases refactoring

current list of UC : http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Use_Cases

<scribe> new template: http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/UseCases

JC: BIn, should we do some archeology for each use case owner?

Bin: yes

Tuner CG discussion

email sent today: http://www.w3.org/mid/CA819749-78C4-4D71-A83B-F05030AC6795@yahoo.fr

JC: summarizing the discussion

how can we name it? JC: ... how can we describe its goal?

scribe: ... we would like to name it in an agnostic way

not tuner API, ... not tuner URI

scribe: comments?

Sheau: Tuner Management ?
... Tuner part is ok, right?

jcverdie: i think so

<Zakim> kaz, you wanted to suggest "tuning"

kaz: something like Channel Tuning
... Tuner implies specific devices or software, tuning just talks about functionalities

yosuke: Tuner API is not so bad imho
... i can live with any kind of name

jcverdie: Kaz and Sheau please reply to my email sent today so we can have a conclusion
... AOB?

<yosuke> [yosuke: Regarding new names for Tuner API TF, new names are likely to bring new problems. For example channels or services can bring other kind of issues.]

<kaz> [ adjourned ]