IRC log of html-media on 2015-08-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:22 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #html-media
14:56:22 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:56:24 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:56:24 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #html-media
14:56:26 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 63342
14:56:26 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:56:27 [trackbot]
Meeting: HTML Media Task Force Teleconference
14:56:27 [trackbot]
Date: 18 August 2015
14:56:49 [paulc]
14:56:56 [paulc]
present+ paulc
14:57:51 [joesteele]
joesteele has joined #html-media
14:58:37 [ddorwin]
ddorwin has joined #html-media
15:00:21 [markw]
markw has joined #html-media
15:01:50 [BobLund]
BobLund has joined #html-media
15:02:00 [markw]
present+ markw
15:02:03 [joesteele_]
joesteele_ has joined #html-media
15:02:19 [davide]
davide has joined #html-media
15:02:27 [davide]
present+ davide
15:03:51 [paulc]
15:04:10 [joesteele_]
present+ steele
15:04:36 [paulc]
present+ joesteele
15:05:05 [jdsmith]
jdsmith has joined #html-media
15:05:08 [ddorwin]
present+ ddorwin
15:05:10 [paulc]
present+ jdsmith
15:05:11 [jdsmith]
jdsmith +present
15:05:55 [paulc]
help present
15:06:47 [joesteele]
scribe: joesteele_
15:06:57 [paulc]
15:07:04 [paulc]
rrsagent, generate the minutes
15:07:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate paulc
15:07:23 [joesteele]
topic: Issue 45, pull request 54
15:07:38 [joesteele]
15:07:41 [joesteele]
topic: ISSUE-45: Remove "persistent-release-message" MediaKeySessionType
15:07:51 [joesteele]
paulc: Google presented a technical position paper
15:08:03 [joesteele]
… multiple calls for secure release to be put back in the spec
15:08:13 [joesteele]
… late emails still addressing this
15:08:24 [joesteele]
… let’s go around and discuss what should happen
15:08:38 [joesteele]
… and find out how much concensus we have
15:08:44 [joesteele]
15:09:04 [joesteele]
… unless folks have questions, we probably don’t need to dig much more on this
15:09:08 [markw]
15:09:20 [paulc]
ack markw
15:09:49 [joesteele]
markw: David raised some interesting points but don’t think it fully replaces the secure release outlined
15:10:26 [joesteele]
… David has pointed out some client spec issues, but don’t believe they cannot be addressed by all browsers
15:10:33 [paulc]
15:10:42 [jdsmith]
15:11:03 [markw]
I don't think the client issues raised are "web architetcure: issues suitable for the TAG
15:11:12 [paulc]
ack jdsmith
15:11:41 [joesteele]
jdsmith: I did not respond in a technical manner to the license renewal post, but we have some concerns about scalability
15:11:55 [joesteele]
… but we do have partners asking for this, industry demand
15:12:14 [joesteele]
… we think it should be in the spec to be interoperabl and not too difficult to address
15:12:23 [joesteele]
… agree that this should be addressed in the task force
15:12:32 [joesteele]
15:12:40 [paulc]
ack joe
15:13:44 [paulc]
Is BobLunc on the phone?
15:13:48 [joesteele]
joesteele: we agree that the license renewal is interesting but do not feel it 100% replces the secure release as we have implemented
15:14:00 [joesteele]
BobLund: I can comment in a minute — hold on
15:14:07 [joesteele]
15:14:09 [joesteele]
15:14:33 [BobLund]
15:14:41 [joesteele]
paulc: David do you want to speak?
15:14:44 [paulc]
ack bob
15:15:07 [joesteele]
BobLund: I want to re-iterate our support for seure release — we have service provides who want to use it
15:15:13 [ddorwin]
Can people here me (before Bob started talking)?
15:15:32 [joesteele]
… we are seeing browsers, and multiple service providers implementing this
15:15:33 [paulc]
No we could not hear you. Sorry.
15:15:47 [jdsmith]
To ddorwin: I didn't hear you speak...
15:16:02 [joesteele]
paulc: do you have a position on license renewal?
15:16:30 [joesteele]
BobLund: License renewal is also used in some cases, but at least one of our members sees a need for both
15:16:36 [joesteele]
… dont think one is a replacement for the other
15:16:53 [joesteele]
paulc: David we could not hear you before — try again please
15:17:01 [ddorwin]
sorry. i'll try calling again
15:17:04 [joesteele]
ddorwin: <no audio>
15:17:16 [ddorwin]
our position is in the email I sent last night. I'll follow up on Mark's reply.
15:17:32 [joesteele]
Zakim, who is here?
15:17:32 [Zakim]
sorry, joesteele, I don't know what conference this is
15:17:34 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jdsmith, davide, joesteele, BobLund, markw, ddorwin, Zakim, RRSAgent, paulc, adrianba, robink, cwilso, trackbot
15:17:38 [BobLund]
dial in /irc
15:17:59 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generate minutes
15:17:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate joesteele
15:18:10 [paulc]
Is Davide on the phone call?
15:18:46 [davide]
i am using webex voip
15:18:49 [joesteele]
ddorwin: I responded in the email thread last night
15:18:58 [davide]
but i have nothing to say on this matter :)
15:19:02 [joesteele]
… if folks are sure this is not a web arhictecture issue we can move one
15:19:24 [joesteele]
jdsmith: can you summarize your concenrs about lifetime of objects?
15:19:24 [paulc]
See for David's position on web architecture issue
15:20:06 [markw]
15:20:10 [joesteele]
ddorwin: unless you have persistent storage, when you close the application you can’t specifiy anything afterwards. there is no way of specifying something to happen after the apps is closed.
15:20:22 [joesteele]
… there is no other feature that has this
15:20:33 [paulc]
ack markw
15:20:54 [joesteele]
markw: if you define what happens at close to not include this then it will not happen
15:21:14 [joesteele]
… I understand the req to not allo the web app to control how long it takes, but the browser could actually make this happen
15:21:34 [joesteele]
ddorwin: 2 of the browsers uses OS based systems that are very different
15:21:49 [joesteele]
… the question is not whether it can be done but whether it should be done
15:22:17 [joesteele]
… by definition the feature requires that after the apps is closed something ahppens
15:22:41 [joesteele]
markw: this is an implementation details, not a web architecture issue
15:22:52 [BobLund]
15:22:59 [paulc]
ack boblund
15:23:01 [joesteele]
ddorwin: I am suggesting we get input because neither of us are epxerts here
15:23:28 [joesteele]
BobLund: as far as I know there are no specs in W3C for user agent behavior other than algorithem behaviors for an API
15:23:35 [joesteele]
… this seems like an impleemntation details
15:23:59 [joesteele]
ddorwin: this feature can only be implemented with this behavior
15:24:08 [markw]
15:24:13 [paulc]
ack markw
15:24:13 [joesteele]
… the implication is that the browser has to do this
15:24:33 [joesteele]
markw: there are things in the web platform that happen when the app is clsoed, ie. the onClsoe event
15:24:47 [joesteele]
… this does not seem out of sync with those, no lack of predcendence here
15:25:11 [joesteele]
ddorwin: TAG has proposed some things as anti-features and they are being phased out
15:25:30 [joesteele]
paulc: we have two questions
15:25:45 [joesteele]
… 1) should we accept pull request 54 — seems to be substantial support
15:26:05 [joesteele]
… 2) even if we accept the request, we should get addiitonal feedback from TAG
15:26:23 [joesteele]
… seeems to me that the task force should decide here
15:26:29 [ddorwin]
15:26:35 [joesteele]
… is there anyone that cannot live with accepting this?
15:26:40 [paulc]
ack dd
15:26:55 [joesteele]
ddorwin: until I answer the architectural question,
15:27:09 [joesteele]
paulc: these are things we can do after the pull request
15:27:20 [joesteele]
… so you are saying you object to the pull request?
15:27:32 [joesteele]
ddorwin: yes we have been working 4-5 months and are still working
15:27:55 [joesteele]
paulc: we have substantial support for accepting this
15:28:08 [joesteele]
… we dont want to wait on getting the TAGs opinion
15:28:16 [joesteele]
… I propose we accpet the pull request
15:28:29 [joesteele]
… and keep the other disucssion orthogonal
15:28:47 [joesteele]
… there are avenues for you to object if you feel it necessary
15:29:03 [joesteele]
… would Mark or Jerry implement the pull request?
15:29:15 [joesteele]
jdsmith: I will handle the request since Mark offered
15:29:30 [joesteele]
ddorwin: I am already having discussions with the TAG so I can handle the other discussion
15:29:45 [joesteele]
paulc: lets make that discussion transparent
15:30:08 [joesteele]
ddorwin: yes. I was just confirming this was an appropriate TAG discussion
15:30:24 [ddorwin]
For the record, I object to inclusion before resolving the architectural issues.
15:30:25 [joesteele]
paulc: if you have other questions on this, please open new issues
15:30:45 [joesteele]
topic: Issue 41, 52, 53 cluster
15:31:10 [joesteele]
paulc: we can try to get the positions out before we have to leave
15:31:15 [markw]
\me oh, I guess I meant I would still be on the phone
15:32:03 [paulc]
ISSUE-41 Update algorithms to reflect keys being provided in the Initialization Data
15:32:13 [joesteele]
ddorwin: Joe and Mark countered with examples of where issue 52 is blocked and non supported by the algoithsm
15:32:27 [joesteele]
paulc: do we have enough to resolve issue 41?
15:32:46 [joesteele]
ddorwin: made a proposal but not enough feedback yet
15:32:54 [ddorwin]
End of
15:32:56 [joesteele]
joesteele: I have not had a chance to review
15:33:06 [joesteele]
… and won’t have time on this call
15:33:48 [ddorwin]
s/End of/The proposal for resolving issue 52, is at the end of/
15:34:02 [joesteele]
joesteele: 52 blocks 41 and 41 blocks 53
15:34:24 [joesteele]
paulc: so David your proposal is how to handle issue 52?
15:34:27 [paulc]
ISSUE-52 Remove reference to keys in Initialization Data definition
15:34:28 [joesteele]
ddorwin: yes
15:34:31 [ddorwin]
Issue 52 is basically independent and relates to a bug in the existing text. The other Issues are new features.
15:34:44 [joesteele]
paulc: any other comments on Davids proposal
15:34:56 [joesteele]
… Joe we need you to repsond on this item
15:35:03 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generate minutes
15:35:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate joesteele
15:35:23 [joesteele]
ddorwin: 41 would need algorithm design if we resolve 52
15:35:35 [joesteele]
joesteele: agreed
15:35:36 [paulc]
Issue-41 and ISSUE-53 need further elaboration after we resolved ISSUE-52
15:36:29 [paulc]
Most of what is needed is there for ISSUE-41 but ISSUE-53 certainly needs more description if we decide to do that feature.
15:36:38 [joesteele]
joesteele: I believe I have provided much of the detail for 41, but needs more work.
15:37:07 [joesteele]
paulc: if you and David can get concensus on 52, would be good to specify how 41 should move forward
15:37:20 [joesteele]
joesteele: makes sense
15:37:31 [joesteele]
paulc: 53 will remain on hold then until the others are done
15:37:48 [joesteele]
topic: ISSUE-63 and Pull Request-66
15:37:53 [joesteele]
paulc: action on David
15:38:05 [joesteele]
ddorwin: have not had a chance to finish this - try to do in the next two weeks
15:38:15 [paulc] will be reviewed by David
15:38:27 [joesteele]
topic: ISSUE-77 - Correct object name at the beginning of section 6.3 MediaKeyStatusMap
15:38:33 [joesteele]
paulc: no coments on this yet
15:38:42 [joesteele]
jdsmith: just a typo I think
15:38:50 [paulc]
15:38:50 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generate minutes
15:38:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate joesteele
15:39:11 [joesteele]
paulc: if you are confident it is editorial, please assign to yourself and make the change
15:39:21 [joesteele]
topic: ISSUE-17 - Replace "fire a simple event" with "fire an event" for non-simple Events
15:39:35 [paulc]
15:39:41 [joesteele]
paulc: Jerry this was where you went to the WG to get advice
15:39:47 [joesteele]
… and you now have a proposal in hand?
15:39:58 [joesteele]
jdsmith: I got some additional advice after I made the proposal
15:40:09 [joesteele]
… Dvaid is right, these are not simple events
15:40:21 [joesteele]
… we have a named event, the changce I made was to fire the named event
15:40:33 [joesteele]
… but I have an addiitonal comment i need to digest
15:40:35 [paulc]
15:41:01 [joesteele]
… my proposal was essentialy davids proposed language but with the named event from our spec.
15:41:17 [joesteele]
paulc: is the feedback in the response?
15:41:18 [paulc]
Proposal in and feedback in
15:41:30 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generta eminutes
15:41:30 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'generta eminutes', joesteele. Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:41:38 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generate minutes
15:41:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate joesteele
15:41:59 [joesteele]
paulc: joe please looks at issue 71
15:42:06 [joesteele]
… folks review the rest of the agenda
15:42:12 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generate minutes
15:42:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate joesteele
15:42:20 [paulc]
Topic: Next meeting
15:44:18 [paulc]
We will try for an EME meeting on Tue Sep 1.
15:44:52 [paulc]
rrsagent, generate the minutes
15:44:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate paulc
15:45:19 [davide]
davide has left #html-media
15:46:21 [ddorwin]
ddorwin has joined #html-media
15:58:56 [paulc]
rrsagent, generate the minutes
15:58:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate paulc
16:13:09 [adrianba]
adrianba has joined #html-media
16:55:34 [joesteele]
s/<joesteele> topic: ISSUE-45: Remove "persistent-release-message" MediaKeySessionType/topic: ISSUE-45: Remove "persistent-release-message" MediaKeySessionType/
16:55:41 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:55:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate joesteele
16:56:11 [joesteele]
16:56:25 [joesteele]
16:56:39 [joesteele]
s/interoperabl /interoperable /
16:56:56 [joesteele]
16:57:09 [joesteele]
s/here me/hear me/
16:57:29 [joesteele]
s/seeing browsers/seeing multiple browsers/
16:57:45 [joesteele]
16:58:03 [joesteele]
16:58:27 [joesteele]
s/allo the/allow the/
16:58:43 [joesteele]
s/implementation details,/implementation detail,/
16:58:49 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:58:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate joesteele
16:59:12 [joesteele]
s/impleemntation details/implementation detail/
16:59:25 [joesteele]
16:59:34 [joesteele]
16:59:42 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:59:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate joesteele
16:59:57 [joesteele]
17:00:18 [joesteele]
s/we should get/should we get/
17:00:56 [joesteele]
17:01:06 [joesteele]
17:01:19 [joesteele]
17:01:58 [joesteele]
17:03:36 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:03:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate joesteele
17:05:26 [joesteele]
17:05:31 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:05:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate joesteele
17:05:47 [joesteele]
17:05:55 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:05:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate joesteele
17:06:05 [joesteele]
17:06:11 [joesteele]
: rrsagent, generate minutes
17:06:18 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:06:18 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate joesteele
17:07:06 [joesteele]
17:07:15 [joesteele]
17:07:23 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:07:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate joesteele
17:07:36 [joesteele]
s/looks at /look at /
17:07:44 [joesteele]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:07:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate joesteele
17:10:24 [joesteele]
joesteele has left #html-media
18:58:29 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #html-media