See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 29 July 2014
<scribe> Scribe: joesteele
<paulc> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2014Jul/0038.html
Previous Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2014Jul/0017.html
https://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/
<paulc> Beijing air quality: http://www.stateair.net/web/post/1/1.html
paulc: looks like editors draft
was updated yesterday
... bug count is still 21
... don't see any new bugs
... 4 bugs have been touched
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26372
paulc: David asked to add this --
we missed it last time
... have been updates since last meeting
... should we skip since David is not here
... ?
... let's skip this again for now till David is here
<scribe> ... pending response from David -- discussion at a future meeting
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18515
paulc: lot's of comments from #35
on
... Jerry had comments yesterday
... what is still outstanding?
<paulc> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18515#c39
jdsmith: question about race conditions, could mis-set the waitingFor attribute
<paulc> Race conditions: See https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18515#c31
jdsmith: agreed to make the changes we are sure of - waiting for feedback from group for the rest
paulc: so you are asking to
review this change and make coments on race conditions?
... any comments?
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25268
paulc: my agenda says see comment 6 for Davids change and more input
<paulc> See https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25268#c6
paulc: Jerry have you worked on this?
jdsmith: no, but is reset to the beginning
paulc: we need input from the group as the previous change was rolled back
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17673
paulc: see Jerrys response
jdsmith: made an edit
paulc: is anything outstanding here?
<paulc> See https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17673#c68
jdsmith: David and I were going
back and forth on this, important content but non-normative,
agreed to put in a notes section
... think we could close this bug after review to confirm
paulc: so folks please object or will be resolved as fixed
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26332
paulc: some discussion since last
mtg
... Jerry did you need more time to study
joesteele: Mark had feedback here
markw: regarding secure origin --
did not think this was a good idea
... should not be required by the specification
paulc: Jerry you argued that
insisting on this would be an issue for intra-net usage (i.e.
behind a firewall)
... classic argument
jdsmith: Ryans comment is that we
can't count on the CDM to secure these exchanges, but I think
we do count on the CDM to do this
... protecting the ID should not push us to require HTTPS
paulc: have you responded to Ryan?
jdsmith: had not seen his comment, made mine late
paulc: we will continue this dialog in the bug, responses needed from Jerry and David
jdsmith: think I had no objection to recommending, but not requiring
paulc: SHOULD not MUST in RFC
language
... but server should not reject folks using HTTP
... is that because this is an easy middle position?
jdsmith: if you have a rationale that justifies not using it - that should be allowed
markw: I think we can make a
general application recommendation, but not a normative
requirement
... don't recommend browsers only support HTTPS
jdsmith: that is what I intended
paulc: maybe you should add the
"SHOULD" comment in the bug
... then Mark can make his comment
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26401
joesteele: I did not update the bug yet with proposed code
<paulc> See David's comment: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26401#c1
joesteele: will try to look before the next meeting
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26207
paulc: has been RESOLVED
FIXED
... no -- wrong bug #
<paulc> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26207#c4
paulc: Bob made a comment with no
responses as yet
... Jerry can you read Bob's response?
jdsmith: this is from a comment
he made in the last call, I am hoping to confirm that there is
a way to pre-check the license criteria
... some prototyping work needs to be done to learn more
here
... some stuff is out of scope for EME -- that is off the
table
paulc: that is on the editors list
joesteele: some OP cannot be tested without actually testing playback -- is that on your list?
jdsmith: yes that is on our list, we considered testing a small piece of content. Will have more data next week
paulc: Joe you provided summary of this thread yesterday
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2014Jul/0040.html
<paulc> Joe's summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2014Jul/0040.html
joesteele: new information from Mark leads to more understanding of why we have this feature
markw: we need David to have this discussion -- he was pushing for more application control
jdsmith: we are interested in
automatically re-using licenses from previous sessions
... would like to see that in the spec somehow, seems more
natural
joesteele: +1 -- this makes more sense to me
jdsmith: could send a message that says the key was added instead of sending a new key request
markw: have to convince David
jdsmith: one remaining issue was preventing use of persistent licenses
paulc: Joe you asked for more input after last meeting (22nd) was some feedback that occurred right before the meeting
joesteele: that was feedback from Mark -- in the wiki already
<paulc> David's response after the last meeting: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2014Jul/0021.html
paulc: lot's of effort in the
loadSession thread instead
... if you followed the thread some corrections were made
joesteele: the Key Release
section will change still - lot's of conversation going on
still
... request from Wayne Borean I do not think will result in a
change but I still need to think about the response he sent and
the fix he proposed
... other use cases seem to be static
paulc: started this coming out of
April meeting -- seemed to have helped focus some understanding
a bit
... which of the outstanding bugs might be related?
... is the wiki content tagged with bugs?
joesteele: not as yet - do folks think that is useful?
paulc: maybe send an email making
the connection between the bugs and the use cases to draw
interest from the group
... assume editors will make progress on these bugs
... think we will end up with a core set of hard bugs that will
map to the wiki
... would like to know what that mapping is - maybe you have
notes from the mtg that will help?
paulc: Tuesday next meeting I
will be bass fishing -- can't make the meeting
... should we skip the mtg next week?
... would meet on August 12th
jdsmith: make senses -- good activity by email as well
paulc: let's keep that up --
anchoring the wiki material to the email will help as
well
... getting down to the core set of problems fairly soon
... think we are done
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Tpoic: /Topic: / Succeeded: s/futur /future / Succeeded: s/misset/mis-set/ Succeeded: s/of, waiting/of - waiting/ Succeeded: s/should not be controlled by the specification/should not be required by the specification/ Succeeded: s/using it that/using it - that/ Found Scribe: joesteele Inferring ScribeNick: joesteele Default Present: [IPcaller], jdsmith, joesteele, markw, glenn, paulc, [Microsoft], adrianba Present: [IPcaller] jdsmith joesteele markw glenn paulc [Microsoft] adrianba Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2014Jul/0038.html Found Date: 29 Jul 2014 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/07/29-html-media-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]