See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 19 May 2015
<scribe> Scribenick: paulc
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015May/0017.html
paulc: Paul spoke to plh about
the proposed generic license request/response protocol and plh
felt it was NOT in scope for the HTML WG and thus NOT is scope
for the TF
... Mark then counterproposed splitting the work as per
0017.html
plh: 2 items to distinguish: a)
technical work b) how to fit it in W3C
... on the first item plh encourages the TF to continue the
technical work
<plh> http://www.w3.org/2013/09/html-charter.html
<plh> [[
<plh> continue the development of APIs for interacting with in-memory representations of resources that use the HTML language, as well as extensions to those APIs ]
plh: on the second part two items determine what is in scope
<plh> [[
plh: see above quote
<plh> [[
<plh> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases such as live events or premium content
<plh> ]]
plh: and there is a second part
of the charter which mentions work on extensions to the
HTMLMediaElement interface
... see above quote
... I have a hard time squeezing the proposed work into either
of the above items
... but if we cannot fit it in currently then we have to figure
out how to do the work in W3C
markw: This new work in support
for the work of playback of "premium content"
... the connection is tenuous
... If our existing work falls under the two scope items since
they fall under the playback of premium content then maybe this
work does too
plh: There might be a patent policy complaint here since the "lawyers" might say we are expanding the scope to something new
markw: The charter appears to be much broader than the existing EME and MSE work or the work at the state when the charter was updated to describe the EME and MSE work at that time
plh: I agree the charter is
somewhat broader in the statement of work
... If the TF wants to work on this then plh suggests we go
ahead
markw: Would it help to keep the work separated in another document?
plh: The good news is that there
is discussion going on to create a Media WG and we might very
well have a new charter later this year
... maybe at that time we would be more specific
... maybe it will be murky for several months and then will get
clarified
<markw__> Sounds good to me
plh: we definitely will not finish even the existing work and will defintiely will need another charter even to cover that existing MSE and EME work
paulc: The F2F meeting suggested
that it would be good to have CDMs involved in this new
work.
... It might be that this is when we would have the "lawyers"
involved and questioning the broadening scope
plh: Yes, and if we need a new charter earlier to handle that then this is a possibility as well.
paulc: paulc: did plh have any thoughts about splitting the work as per 0017.html
plh: The phase 1 proposed by Mark makes sense given what is in EME. What is the difference between Mark's proposed phase 1 and phase 2?
mark2: My proposal was based on
speculationg of the rationale for the material being out of
scope.
... I will trying to keep the "dragons" into Phase 2
plh: I think it makes sense to work on both parts if we are going to do the work in the TF
paulc: Chair: To summarize then plh recommends that we continue to do the technical work
plh: And we can consider this based on the protocol that is in the EME spec already.
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/56
Editorial and on the "to be implemented list"
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/57
Related to Issue-51
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/51
markw: My response may have not
been on target and I will need to make another issue
... Perhaps a lighter weight approach other than "user consent
prompt" would be better
ddorwin: Implementations can do
what they want for security matters
... "prompt" only occurs 3 times in the EME document
... and it occurs in a case that we want to remove
markw: For cookies sites usually
inform the user that cookies are being used
... it is the "recommendation" that I cannot remember us
agreeing to
markw; I will raise another issue to focus on my concerns
<markw__> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/45
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/45
Pull request is in https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/54
ddorwin: We are looking at implementation impact of pull request 54. Did not have a chance to finish before today's meeting.
jdsmith: I will take a look as well before Jun 2 TF meeting
The Media TF will discuss EME next on Tue Jun 2. Next weeks meeting is on MSE.
<markw__> https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/#methods
<ddorwin> https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/#h-issue4
<BobLund> http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-html-media-minutes.html#item02
See F2F discussion at http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-html-media-minutes.html#item02
<ddorwin> "MarkVicksers:… what's being suggested is we put an issue box in the spec, and we (Comcast) will get in touch with WebAppSec WG about the "privileged context" which is more generic than saying HTTPS, etc."
<ddorwin> "paulc: … The earlier you (Comcast) get engaged with WebAppSec the better."
ACTION on boblund to get in touch with WebAppSec WG about the "privileged context" which is more generic than saying HTTPS, etc."
<trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/users>.
<scribe> ACTION: boblund to get in touch with WebAppSec WG about the "privileged context" which is more generic than saying HTTPS, etc." [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/19-html-media-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Error finding 'boblund'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/users>.
<scribe> ACTION: paulc to get in touch with WebAppSec WG about the "privileged context" which is more generic than saying HTTPS, etc." (really on Bob Lund) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/19-html-media-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-93 - Get in touch with webappsec wg about the "privileged context" which is more generic than saying https, etc." (really on bob lund) [on Paul Cotton - due 2015-05-26].
Meeting adjourned at 11:44 EDT.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/another response/another issue/ Found ScribeNick: paulc Inferring Scribes: paulc WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: BobLund IPcaller Microsoft Scribenick aaaa davide ddorwin html-media https jdsmith joined mark2 markw markw__ paulc plh trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015May/0042.html Found Date: 19 May 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/19-html-media-minutes.html People with action items: boblund paulc[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]