HTML Media Task Force Teleconference -- 10 Feb 2015

<trackbot> Date: 10 February 2015

<paulc> Discussion items suggested by Mark: Bug 26776, Issue 22, Issue 19 and Issue 16

<davide> :)

<paulc> Discussion items suggested by Mark: Bug 26776, Issue 22, Issue 19 and Issue 16

<paulc> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Feb/0018.html

EME bugs and issues

<paulc> Encrypted Media Extensions bugs:http://tinyurl.com/7tfambo

<scribe> scribe: joesteele_

<paulc> EME GitHub issues: https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues

paulc: have all of the bugs been moved to Github issues?

ddorwin: not yet -- bugs in both locations now

Bug 26776

<paulc> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26776

paulc: was there a specific reason to discuss?

markw: this has been on the table for a long time

<paulc> See David's last comment: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26776#c20

paulc: david do you know what you want to do here?

ddorwin: assigned to Jerry -- has not added a proposal yet
... Chris Pearce has expressed a concern about the attribute, I thought it made sense
... still waiting for Jerrys action

<paulc> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26776

jdsmith: this is definitely on my plate -- I think we need an event but have not gotten around to defining the proposal yet

<paulc> ACTION on jdsmith to make proposal for bug 26776

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

jdsmith: saw David has added acomment, but have not read yet

<paulc> ACTION: jdmith to make proposal for resolving bug 26776 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/02/10-html-media-minutes.html#action01]

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

<paulc> ACTION: jdsmith to make proposal for resolving bug 26776 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/02/10-html-media-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-73 - Make proposal for resolving bug 26776 [on Jerry Smith - due 2015-02-17].

paulc: when can it be done by?

jdsmith: I will wrap it up by the 17th

<paulc> Discussion items suggested by Mark: Bug 26776, Issue 22, Issue 19 and Issue 16

Issue #22

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/22

paulc: where do we stand on this?

<paulc> Issue 22: Provide more guidance on the behavior of the keyStatuses attribute

markw: this is one from previous discussions on downscaling and statuses -- still an open issue
... long post with lots of options to solve
... please review and give feedback

<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/22#issuecomment-72681574

paulc: do you have a favorite?

markw: solution #3 is my preference. it is most straightforward

<paulc> Mark wrote: "Solution 3 is pragmatic, addressing the presently known use-case in a straightforward manner. It has the advantage of simplicity at the expense flexibility for future use-cases or for varying definitions of "SD", "HD" and "UHD"."

markw: this is very pragmatic version

paulc: any comments?

ddorwin: content dependent policy is a hack and insecure
... not supported by all CDMs or especially hardware CDMs
... think we have a solution

markw: don't agree that this is a hack -- it is widely used
... the keyIDs approach would break this model and fix it at the wrong level
... this is the root of the disagreement
... whether these policies are appropriate at all

joesteele_: I generally agree with Mark, I need to review his comments and David's and I will respond in the next few days
... think the fake IDs fix is at the wrong level

Issue 19

<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/19

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/19

<paulc> Ensure promises returned by methods are fulfilled before event handlers are executed

markw: our devs are keen to know what the answer is here -- i.e. that the order is guaranteed

joesteele_: just read Chris's comment. I think I need to discuss internally a bit more, but should have an answer before next meeting

ddorwin: there is a related one like this -- may be a misunderstanding about how to resolve the promise
... even for the indiv case
... will clarify in the bug
... I think there is general agreement we need to resolve this with the promise resolving first
... proposal should be drafted soon

jdsmith: we reviewed as well and agree that the ordering is that promises should be resolved first
... no objection

Issue 16

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/16

<paulc> Review close() and remove() logic and behavior for persistent-* sessions

markw: we should address this as a priority, now that we have a consistent persistent session we should fully document how it works
... it should be possible but not guaranteed that if the session is closed involuntarily that the key release is still sent

ddorwin: there a bunch of related bugs to the persistent- flags
... need to think about them all together

joesteele_: I agree with that -- need to think about all of these together

ddorwin: in my head they are grouped as "persistent-" -- they have close or remove in the name

paulc: Issues 16 & 18 then?

<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/18

paulc: so if you work on these consider the other as well

ddorwin: 18 is mostly resolved but depends on 16

paulc: thanks Mark for the list
... any other issues folks want to raise today?

<ddorwin> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/29

Issue 29

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/29

<paulc> Allow applications to check MediaKeySessionType support via requestMediaKeySystemAccess()

ddorwin: please read this -- it affects detection and would be bad for folks not to support this
... other bugs that have not been resolved -- map-like etc that have not been commented on

paulc: the ammount of discussion in the last week has gone up much higher
... what is the map-like issue is?

ddorwin: yes -- we need to bring in WedIDL people to discuss that
... Issues 24 and 25 are two of them

<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/24

<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/25

Map-like objects

<paulc> David is getting input from WebIDL experts

joesteele_: not sure I understand what the actual issue

ddorwin: it was similar-to not map-like so that was the issue -- need to get clarity

paulc: any other issues to raise?

Hearbeat

paulc: David you asked about publishing the registry as well
... some back and forth -- the editors need to decide how/where to publish these
... please respond on the thread
... Aaron has not said whether the MSE doc is ready -- did not respond there
... let's just publish EME if we can
... any problems with putting EME registry into dated-space for now?

ddorwin: yes I would rather handle the separation issue first

paulc: then you should respond on the thread, that we will do the same as last July
... publish with a pointer
... say exactly where you want to put

ddorwin: will do

paulc: BTW clicking the link now says the spec has moved (to the github) -- has it moved?

ddorwin: yes it has moved to github

dorwin: won't be an issue everything will be on github

paulc: the editors should not be blocked

ddorwin: currently all we need is a date and a place

paulc: propose we have another EME mtg next week as discussions are moving

Next meeting

ddorwin: will only have a couple of days in so hopefully others can get some stuff done

<paulc> We will meet next week on Feb 17 to discuss EME bugs and issues

<paulc> We are adjounred.

- DRAFT -

HTML Media Task Force Teleconference

10 Feb 2015

Attendees

Contents

EME bugs and issues

Bug 26776

Issue #22

Issue 19

Issue 16

Issue 29

Map-like objects

Hearbeat

Next meeting

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output