14:04:24 RRSAgent has joined #tvapi 14:04:24 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/12/08-tvapi-irc 14:04:57 Bin_Hu has joined #tvapi 14:09:45 igarashi has joined #tvapi 14:10:40 This meting has started? 14:10:46 kaz_ has joined #tvapi 14:11:06 igarashi, not yet, we have a problem with WebEx 14:12:48 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:12:53 Meeting: TV Control API CG call 14:12:55 Chair: Bin 14:13:50 Present+ Kazuyuki_Ashimura, Bin_Hu, Chris_Needham, Tatsuya_Igarashi, Francois_Daoust, Paul_Higgs, Sung_Hei_Kim 14:14:49 scribe: tidoust 14:15:13 Topic: Review of action items 14:15:28 Bin: I think that we have completed all the open action items, so the list is empty. 14:15:46 -> https://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/wiki/Main_Page/Agenda_Telco_Dec_08_2015 agenda wiki 14:15:50 agenda: https://www.w3.org/community/tvapi/wiki/Main_Page/Agenda_Telco_Dec_08_2015 14:16:04 Topic: Review of the draft WG charter 14:16:49 Bin: Thanks Francois for drafting the initial charter. It's great to see momentum since TPAC, where ATSC indicated interest to reference this specification. 14:16:54 -> http://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/tvcontrol-2015.html draft WG charter 14:17:08 ... Based on these discussions, several people at W3C kicked off transition activities. 14:17:21 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:17:21 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/08-tvapi-minutes.html kaz 14:17:34 ... Several people have contributed to these discussions already. I think the charter is in good shape. 14:17:57 ... The goal is to wrap-up and see if others have additional comments. 14:18:11 q+ 14:18:32 q? 14:18:38 scribenick: kaz 14:18:55 tidoust: agree the draft charter looks good 14:19:03 ... but there are two questions 14:19:10 ... would like to raise again 14:19:34 ... the group agrees with what would happen? 14:19:48 ... also the API would be for usual Web runtime? 14:20:06 ... would work for TV tuner as well 14:20:32 ... the charter currently doesn't clearly states 14:20:46 ... it's for usual Web model 14:20:55 ... so want to check that point 14:21:20 bin: the deliverable of this proposed group should be usual Web runtime 14:21:30 q+ 14:21:32 ack t 14:21:40 ... similar to the ones on automotive 14:21:52 q? 14:21:59 scribenick: tidoust 14:22:02 ack kaz 14:22:08 ack k 14:23:07 kaz: I think that's an important point. Probably we should ask TV vendors for this question. Igarashi-san, for instance, do you have a specific opinion? Usual Web runtime may be difficult to define in any case. 14:24:10 igarashi: I personally think that regular Web browsers will not support this API in a long time. Broadcasters will not allow to use this API for everyone, I think. I don't have a clear opinion but I'm wondering about the current security model of the automotive API. 14:24:18 q+ 14:24:31 ack k 14:24:44 Kaz: That's a good question. 14:25:17 ... The WG works collaboratively with the BG. The current spec does not handle security considerations in particular. 14:25:32 ... The first version is only read-only, i.e. getting not setting. 14:25:53 ... That is a difference between these two APIs. 14:26:29 Igarashi: I think the situations are similar. Can any Web application use the automotive API? 14:26:43 Kaz: Right. We might want to clarify things in the charter, then. 14:27:42 Igarashi: Currently, if we apply the security context to the TV Control API, we need to think about very complex issues, including related to addressing broadcasters concerns. 14:28:04 Kaz: other concerns for TV manufacturers, I suppose. 14:28:08 Igarashi: right. 14:28:42 Kaz: Section 3.1 could include links to Automotive WG, Web of Things IG. 14:29:05 Paul: Is the automotive group where different applications from different sources are running on the same platform? 14:29:22 ... There might be less and more sensitive apps. 14:29:46 ... I wonder if the group is working on the classification of apps. Then I could see how that could apply to us. 14:30:11 ... Otherwise, we need to look elsewhere, and find a way to authenticate an app. 14:30:38 ... so that it gets the rights to use this API. 14:31:09 -> http://www.w3.org/2015/10/auto-f2f/DSC_0078.JPG strawman model 14:31:15 Kaz: The Automotive WG is working on several aspects related to this, e.g. in a Wiki page. The group has started to work on security models. 14:31:32 ... We need some kind of proxy that handles the connections inside and also outside of the car. 14:31:43 ... That could be some kind of hardware or some kind of software. 14:31:55 ... This is probably relevant to the TV Control API WG as well. 14:32:38 s|Automotive WG|Automotive WG/BG| 14:32:42 Bin: Thanks for the great input. First, in 3.1, we need to add Automotive group to understand their security model to prevent apps to gather sensitive information from the vehicle. 14:33:19 ... Regarding the security model, let me read the current text to see if we need to adjust it 14:33:35 [[ The API layer will meet the usual requirements of the Web runtime, including privacy and security requirements. The Working Group may introduce a second level of conformance to expose features that may prove more specific to tuner-centric devices (TV and radio sets typically), such as the ability to scan channels. ]] 14:34:03 Bin: The second sentence indicates that we may add a second level. 14:34:44 ... It's really subject to interpretation. Do you think that future work may include work on defining a second level? 14:35:05 q+ 14:35:34 Bin: I think that the text here is good enough. 14:35:47 ack f 14:36:01 [[ The specification(s) produced by this Working Group will include security and privacy considerations. The APIs developed by this group may use a different security model than the traditional browser security model. ]] 14:36:03 http://www.w3.org/2014/automotive/charter.html 14:36:51 s/Bin:/Kaz:/ 14:37:26 fd: would note the Automotive WG Charter says:The APIs developed by this group may use a different security model than the traditional browser security model. 14:37:37 i/fd:/scribenick: kaz/ 14:38:15 ... when I heard Igarashi-san, TV-centric model would be a bit difference 14:38:40 ... so would add similar text as the Automotive Charter to the TV Control API Charter 14:38:44 igarashi: + 14:38:48 s/+/+1/ 14:39:00 ... would use the similar text 14:39:21 kaz: that's good 14:39:31 scribenick: tidoust 14:39:54 Bin: So it would be beneficial to add a similar sentence as in the Automotive WG charter. 14:40:44 ... btw, would ACs ask what the "different security model" would be? 14:41:10 fd: would expect push-backs from ACs 14:41:23 q+ 14:41:29 ack t 14:41:58 bin: maybe we should use a bit different words 14:42:31 ... the group may enhance the security model based on the current Web security model 14:42:45 ... for different types of TV devices 14:43:08 s/enhance the/enhance the traditional/ 14:43:47 fd: my problem might be that "enhance" may sound more secure than the usual model 14:44:34 q+ 14:44:44 "augment 14:44:48 bin: if there is no better words, maybe we can simply reuse the one from automotive 14:45:06 "augment" the current security protocols 14:45:46 igarashi: channel information is not controlled by the user 14:46:10 ... other security model may require secure origin like EME 14:46:28 ... but it might be problematic 14:46:47 ... because "secure origin" could control the device on their own 14:46:51 q? 14:46:59 scribenick: tidoust 14:47:44 Chris: I just agree with the comments from Igarashi-san. I would like to get a better understanding of where we see the divide between the two types of devices. It's not entirely clear in my own mind where we might draw the line. 14:48:14 ... If we're on a broadcaster Web site, can the app switch to other channels of the same broadcast? 14:48:21 ... It's not entirely clear what the division may be. 14:48:26 q? 14:48:30 ack cpn 14:49:15 Words: The group may use a different security model than the traditional browser security model for the second level of conformance. 14:49:31 Kaz: I just wanted to say that I have been working as staff contact and will work with Francois to handle AC review concerns, so don't think we should worry too much about wording. 14:50:20 fd: hope it's useful to have this discussion 14:50:55 ... my initial question was the group would work for web runtime and some specific (device) runtime? 14:51:08 s/was/was:/ 14:51:17 ... the question related to the timeline 14:51:33 ... the more we put into the charter, we need more time 14:51:46 ... the goal is to generate a W3C standard within one year 14:51:53 ... that is an aggressive target 14:52:19 ... so I wanted to raise the question on the scope of the group 14:52:41 ... I'm fine with keeping the two levels of security models 14:53:00 q? 14:53:02 ack k 14:53:09 q+ igarashi 14:53:11 ack i 14:53:21 Igarashi: I'd like to understand the case for having the Web runtime model apply to this API 14:53:32 i/Igarashi:/scribenick: tidoust/ 14:53:40 rrsagent, draft mintues 14:53:40 I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft mintues', kaz. Try /msg RRSAgent help 14:53:45 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:53:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/08-tvapi-minutes.html kaz 14:53:46 ... In my mind, the channel information and program information are very specific data that require some kind of copyright. 14:53:53 s|rrsagent, draft mintues|| 14:54:04 ... That's very different from application-specific data. 14:54:23 ... How would the API address business owner concerns? 14:54:36 ... EME does not handle copyright issues of the owner of data. 14:55:03 ... In this case, the goal is to expose data to the application, which is very sensible. 14:55:08 i/would ACs ask/scribenick: kaz/ 14:55:08 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:55:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/08-tvapi-minutes.html kaz 14:55:54 i/hope it's useful/scribenick: kaz/ 14:55:57 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:55:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/08-tvapi-minutes.html kaz 14:56:23 Bin: Understood. The reason I want to keep this in the charter is that, first I want to keep things more open for future. Secondly, I'd like to be pro-active about AC review comments we may get that point out SysApps WG did not work out in the end. 14:56:27 q+ 14:56:59 ... I don't have a strong opinion though. This means the whole paragraph in the draft charter may need to be revisited as a result. 14:57:33 ... We may want to introduce some new text to replace this text. 14:58:02 q+ 14:59:26 Kaz: The traditional Web security model may be updated based on requirements of the Automotive world. I don't think we should worry too much. 14:59:44 Chris: My comment is that I would like us to keep the Web runtime in the scope of the charter. 14:59:45 ack k 14:59:47 ack c 15:00:09 ... The TV Control API gives us a very nice integration point with video sources and the