IRC log of mediafrag on 2010-06-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

09:00:34 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #mediafrag
09:00:34 [RRSAgent]
logging to
09:00:36 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
09:00:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #mediafrag
09:00:38 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be IA_MFWG
09:00:38 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see IA_MFWG()5:00AM scheduled to start now
09:00:39 [trackbot]
Meeting: Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
09:00:39 [trackbot]
Date: 23 June 2010
09:01:09 [Zakim]
IA_MFWG()5:00AM has now started
09:01:17 [Zakim]
+ +
09:01:23 [raphael]
09:01:29 [raphael]
Regrets: Conrad
09:01:33 [raphael]
Chair: Raphael/Erik
09:01:49 [jackjansen]
jackjansen has joined #mediafrag
09:01:55 [raphael]
Present: Raphael, Silvia, Michael, Yves, Jack
09:01:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate raphael
09:02:01 [davy]
davy has joined #mediafrag
09:02:07 [Zakim]
09:02:15 [raphael]
Present+ Davy
09:02:24 [jackjansen]
zakim, code?
09:02:24 [Zakim]
the conference code is 3724 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), jackjansen
09:02:32 [Zakim]
+ +0329331aabb
09:02:43 [raphael]
Present+ Erik
09:03:00 [Zakim]
+ +31.20.592.aacc
09:03:09 [raphael]
zakim, aacc is Jack
09:03:09 [Zakim]
sorry, raphael, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc'
09:03:10 [jackjansen]
zakim, aacc is me
09:03:10 [Zakim]
sorry, jackjansen, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc'
09:03:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate raphael
09:03:30 [mhausenblas]
Zakim, aacc is jackjansen
09:03:30 [Zakim]
sorry, mhausenblas, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc'
09:03:42 [Zakim]
+ +3539149aadd
09:04:14 [Yves]
09:04:28 [raphael]
scribe: raphael
09:04:32 [raphael]
scribenick: raphael
09:04:40 [erik]
erik has joined #mediafrag
09:04:42 [raphael]
Topic: 1. Admin
09:04:55 [raphael]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 6th F2F meeting
09:05:00 [raphael]
09:05:09 [davy]
09:05:10 [raphael]
09:05:21 [raphael]
09:05:24 [jackjansen]
09:05:26 [raphael]
Minutes are accepted
09:05:31 [erik]
09:05:49 [raphael]
Topic: 2. Follow up of the ACTIONS
09:05:56 [raphael]
09:05:56 [trackbot]
ACTION-174 -- Yves Lafon to produce the common syntax block -- due 2010-06-22 -- OPEN
09:05:56 [trackbot]
09:06:24 [raphael]
close ACTION-174
09:06:25 [trackbot]
ACTION-174 Produce the common syntax block closed
09:07:02 [raphael]
From Silvia:
09:07:12 [raphael]
.. Section 4.1 has the following bit of ABNF:
09:07:18 [raphael]
namevalues = namevalue *( "&" namevalue )
09:07:18 [raphael]
namevalue = name [ "=" value ]
09:07:18 [raphael]
name = fragment - "&" - "="
09:07:18 [raphael]
value = fragment - "&"
09:08:19 [raphael]
Yves: actually, we should remove his block
09:08:28 [raphael]
09:10:02 [Zakim]
+ +61.2.801.2.aaee
09:10:08 [raphael]
Yves: this section is both invalid and un-needed
09:10:40 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:10:40 [Zakim]
silvia was already muted, silvia
09:10:43 [raphael]
... so the whole group agrees that this section should be removed
09:11:06 [raphael]
Topic: 3. Review of the whole document
09:11:11 [raphael]
09:11:11 [trackbot]
ACTION-178 -- Silvia Pfeiffer to review the complete document, remove unnecessary editorial notes before publication -- due 2010-06-23 -- OPEN
09:11:11 [trackbot]
09:11:19 [raphael]
close ACTION-178
09:11:19 [trackbot]
ACTION-178 Review the complete document, remove unnecessary editorial notes before publication closed
09:11:53 [raphael]
Raphael: what do we say about RTSP processing?
09:12:15 [raphael]
Yves: for LC we should not detail the processing of this
09:12:21 [raphael]
... good to mention that the syntax is generic
09:12:26 [raphael]
... and not only for HTTP
09:12:34 [silvia]
09:12:47 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:12:47 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:13:23 [raphael]
Silvia: the messages that go over the protocol is protocol dependant
09:13:30 [davy]
Note that we have a description on our wiki about RTSP:
09:13:46 [raphael]
... what we can do is to say how media fragments URI syntax can be mapped to RTSP messages
09:13:58 [raphael]
... but don't say how, since we don't have time
09:14:16 [Yves]
adding "This specification is not defining the protocol aspect of RTSP handling of media-fragment."
09:14:45 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:14:45 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:15:24 [raphael]
Davy: we could just re-use this wiki page and adapt it to the latest syntax
09:15:37 [raphael]
Yves: problem is that we will need to test this through implementation
09:15:39 [silvia]
09:15:50 [raphael]
... while a WG note would not need to be tested
09:15:52 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:15:52 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:16:00 [raphael]
Davy: but we have an implementation of this!
09:16:29 [raphael]
Silvia: I know people who also wants to have an implementation ... so it must not be difficult
09:16:31 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:16:31 [Zakim]
silvia was already muted, silvia
09:17:37 [raphael]
Yves: I think RTSP is useful ... but I suggest to have it in another document
09:17:46 [raphael]
... but I want to speed up the process
09:17:52 [raphael]
... so I prefer to have another document
09:17:55 [silvia]
if we think it is hard to include RTSP after LC, I think it would make more sense to include it now
09:18:24 [raphael]
Jack: I think it is a good idea to put it into another document
09:18:34 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:18:34 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:19:49 [raphael]
Jack: let me explain why it is a bad idea to include RTSP handling at *this* stage
09:20:19 [raphael]
... the fact that we have one working implementation does not mean we understand fully the mechanism
09:20:26 [silvia]
RTSP has been developed with the fragment functionality as part of the protocol
09:20:32 [raphael]
... except if Davy ensures he got all issues fixed
09:21:10 [raphael]
Davy: I'm also in favor of putting this into another document ... and take our time to check how it works
09:21:14 [silvia]
how hard is it to include this later into the document then, when we make it a separate document now?
09:21:38 [silvia]
why would it delay the LC?
09:21:57 [silvia]
no, not to remove it later - to update it later with more information
09:22:00 [Yves]
delay the LC as we would need to review it
09:22:21 [Yves]
I am not happy in adding at the last minute something as big as that without _any_ review before
09:22:29 [Yves]
and reviewing introduces delays
09:22:35 [silvia]
we don't know everything about caching right now either - there will be more updates necessary
09:22:54 [silvia]
so, if it is easy to add things later, I am fine
09:22:54 [erik]
+1 to Silvia
09:23:26 [silvia]
but if that would be a problem, I object to making it a separate document, because we are ripping apart where ppl can find information about media fragments
09:23:49 [Yves]
09:24:19 [silvia]
I would need to tell ppl: find the spec of URI fragments here, but how to use it with rtsp in this other doc
09:24:38 [Yves]
if someone want to use mediafrag in protocol 'bar' later on does it mean that we will have to revise our doc to add this new protocol?
09:24:53 [raphael]
Michael: we can include it and ask the community for feedback
09:24:59 [Yves]
no silvia, the rtsp spec will refer to the uri syntax one
09:25:02 [silvia]
it's not like rtsp is a new protocol
09:25:14 [Yves]
we expect people to be smart enough to understand what they read no?
09:25:17 [silvia]
Yves: it's still 2 docs
09:25:20 [raphael]
Jack: not at LC stage, you're supposed to have scope the spec
09:25:22 [Yves]
09:25:39 [Yves]
do we want to merge rfc2616 and 3987 as well in our doc?
09:26:17 [jackjansen]
09:26:27 [silvia]
zakim, ack me
09:26:27 [Zakim]
unmuting silvia
09:26:28 [Zakim]
I see jackjansen on the speaker queue
09:26:31 [raphael]
zakim, ack silvia
09:26:31 [Zakim]
I see jackjansen on the speaker queue
09:26:32 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:26:32 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:26:42 [raphael]
Jack: this discussion is procedural
09:26:53 [raphael]
... we all agree we will like to have rtsp in the spec
09:27:08 [raphael]
... the question is whether adding it now, add a cost of 2 months we don't have!
09:27:17 [raphael]
... does it give us enough benefits ?
09:27:46 [jackjansen]
09:28:34 [erik]
09:28:58 [raphael]
Erik: what is wrong of adding it now, few days of copy-pasting
09:29:04 [raphael]
... and review it during LC
09:29:13 [silvia]
I agree
09:29:28 [silvia]
it also gives ppl from that community a need to review it
09:30:04 [Zakim]
09:30:10 [raphael]
Yves: it is not healthy to add things not which hasn't been reviewed
09:30:23 [raphael]
... LC should have been published 6 months ago
09:31:00 [Zakim]
09:31:03 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:31:03 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:31:07 [raphael]
Davy: do we want to be LCWD asap or do we want to cover RTSP?
09:31:27 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:31:27 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:32:31 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:32:31 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:33:06 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:33:06 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:33:26 [raphael]
Jack: the second document is not that important ... since under my understanding, the problem of implementing with RTSP is trivial
09:33:45 [raphael]
... and if it turns to not be trivial, then it will fit a 2.0 version of the spec
09:34:02 [erik]
again +1 to Silvia
09:34:03 [raphael]
Silvia: but if if is trivial, then why not including it now in the document
09:34:22 [raphael]
Jack: what I have said is that with *my* understanding, it is trivial
09:34:27 [raphael]
... but I might be very wrong
09:34:43 [raphael]
Silvia: problem is that you will not trust a note
09:34:51 [raphael]
... and this is pushing people of our spec
09:35:19 [raphael]
... i'm unhappy in splitting the document into multiple docs
09:35:56 [raphael]
Raphael: looking at the charter
09:35:59 [raphael]
... "The Group will focus on developing a mechanism to uniquely identify a temporal fragment within an audio or video object, that is independent of the underlying audio or video codec in use, and will also investigate the delivery of the requested resource to allow full or partial media retrieval using at least the HTTP protocol. "
09:36:00 [erik]
09:36:10 [jackjansen]
09:36:27 [mhausenblas]
09:36:35 [silvia]
zaim, mute me
09:36:39 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:36:39 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:36:43 [raphael]
Silvia: do we really need to understand all the bits of the spec?
09:36:53 [raphael]
Erik: I fully agree with what Silvia has said
09:37:00 [raphael]
zakim, ack Erik
09:37:00 [Zakim]
I see Yves, jackjansen on the speaker queue
09:37:18 [raphael]
Yves: looking at our traffic on our mailing list, not that many emails about rtsp
09:37:21 [jackjansen]
q- same point as yves
09:37:27 [jackjansen]
09:37:32 [raphael]
... we haven't received enough attention and review on this point
09:37:32 [jackjansen]
same point as yves
09:37:39 [silvia]
rtsp got less review because it was much simpler and needed no discussion
09:37:53 [raphael]
09:38:07 [raphael]
zakim, ack yves
09:38:07 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
09:38:38 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:38:38 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:39:21 [raphael]
Raphael: the wiki page has never been included in the doc so that might explain the lack of attention
09:39:25 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:39:25 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:39:30 [raphael]
Yves: having everything in one doc is silly anyway, even html5 is slowly moving away from this
09:39:41 [raphael]
... I don't see studies that people will not look at 2 documents
09:39:52 [raphael]
Raphael: this is a problem of compactness
09:40:05 [silvia]
proposal: could we have a few days of review for the rtsp section and then make the decision?
09:40:42 [silvia]
by when do we need to make the decision to move the doc to LC?
09:40:51 [raphael]
Jack: the documents is a workaround solution
09:41:32 [silvia]
one more week should be enough to learn more about rtsp and make a decision either way
09:42:15 [raphael]
Jack: the problem is not looking at our wiki page which is ok
09:42:27 [raphael]
... the problem is looking at the rtsp spec
09:42:34 [raphael]
... and make sure we are not saying stupid things
09:42:45 [silvia]
I think you can read the rtsp spec within an hour, honestly
09:42:55 [silvia]
I would look at it
09:43:14 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:43:14 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:43:48 [raphael]
Silvia: yes, I have already used rtsp implementations
09:44:14 [raphael]
Raphael: I wonder Yves how would you rate your knowledge of rtsp?
09:44:40 [raphael]
Silvia: i think for temporal fragment over rtsp, there is no problem
09:44:48 [raphael]
... we might have problems with other dimensions
09:45:06 [raphael]
... as Yves said, the problem of cutting the media depending on the codec is the same
09:45:12 [raphael]
... we just have the protocol to fix
09:45:43 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:45:43 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:45:54 [raphael]
Davy: I have also a number of concerns about smpte time codes for rtsp
09:46:00 [Yves]
raphael, I would qualify it as 'very rusty'
09:46:16 [raphael]
... rtsp does not have the content mapping
09:46:27 [raphael]
... should we define it as well for rtsp ?
09:46:41 [raphael]
... I think there are things that MUST been discussed before
09:46:48 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:46:48 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:46:51 [raphael]
... and I don't think it is feasible in one week
09:47:22 [raphael]
Silvia: assuming we do not know all the details, does not make sense to at least include what we have now in the spec?
09:47:41 [raphael]
... actually, the best way to have feedback on what we have is to include it in the document
09:48:04 [raphael]
... afterwards, we might take out this part if we have not enough technical knowledge
09:48:11 [raphael]
... I see this section as mature as others
09:48:23 [raphael]
Raphael: I think I disagree with this latest statemetn
09:48:25 [Yves]
I am strongly against putting a whole new section that didn't get _any_ review and raises lots of question in a LC document
09:48:26 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:48:26 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:48:37 [Yves]
in a regular WD yes, but not on a LC
09:48:38 [raphael]
09:49:03 [silvia]
what comes after LC?
09:49:17 [jackjansen]
Example of problem witrh rtsp: interaction with section 10.0 REDIRECT
09:49:27 [silvia]
I think we will have a second LC anyway
09:49:49 [raphael]
Jack: I think we should not do it, not include rtsp into this doc
09:50:00 [raphael]
... we need much serious thoughts
09:50:07 [jackjansen]
09:50:11 [silvia]
ok, I won't stay in the way
09:50:25 [silvia]
09:50:35 [Yves]
we can have multiple LC for sure
09:50:41 [Yves]
even CR->LC phases
09:51:19 [Yves]
note that I completely agree to have a new WD for RTSP, that we can fasttrack if the doc is in good shape
09:51:29 [raphael]
Raphael: I suggest to add a link towards a wiki page to get feedback
09:51:41 [mhausenblas]
09:51:45 [silvia]
isnt' that like admitting we aren't finished with the doc for LC?
09:51:56 [raphael]
... and a generic sentence stating the importance of the genericity of the URI syntax
09:52:17 [silvia]
ok, fair enough
09:52:23 [erik]
09:52:29 [silvia]
I retract my objection
09:52:39 [davy]
09:52:44 [silvia]
09:52:53 [raphael]
Raphael: 0
09:53:05 [jackjansen]
09:54:08 [raphael]
ACTION: troncy to address RTSP handling, pointing to the wiki page for the processing, making sure the syntax is stated to be generic
09:54:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-179 - Address RTSP handling, pointing to the wiki page for the processing, making sure the syntax is stated to be generic [on Raphaƫl Troncy - due 2010-06-30].
09:54:45 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:54:45 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:55:01 [raphael]
Section 7.4 should it be removed?
09:55:04 [raphael]
ALL: yes
09:55:13 [raphael]
Raphael: ok, I will remove it
09:55:22 [raphael]
close ACTION-178
09:55:22 [trackbot]
ACTION-178 Review the complete document, remove unnecessary editorial notes before publication closed
09:55:31 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:55:31 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:55:59 [silvia]
requirements have been turned into normal text
09:56:00 [silvia]
done :)
09:56:31 [silvia]
but the requirements document is referenced at the start of the document
09:56:40 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:56:40 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:57:16 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:57:16 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:57:44 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
09:57:44 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
09:57:58 [raphael]
Raphael: multiple tracks, is it all clear now?
09:58:19 [raphael]
Silvia: no, sometimes we say one, and sometimes multiple ones
09:58:24 [raphael]
... it must be consistent
09:59:04 [raphael]
... my question is: do we translate this into one header in the request?
09:59:47 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
09:59:47 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
09:59:48 [raphael]
Silvia: the question is do we want to have multiple occurrences of "track" in the URI and a single one in the header?
10:00:01 [raphael]
Jack: do we need to escape semi-colon?
10:00:18 [silvia]
question is: do we agree that there are several "track" parameters in the URI, but only a single on in the HTTP header with the different tracks separated by semicolon
10:00:30 [silvia]
10:00:37 [raphael]
Yves: mutiple tracks mean many many many packets
10:00:47 [raphael]
... we cannot handle this in a multi-part message response
10:01:02 [raphael]
Davy: the response might be a redirect
10:01:08 [raphael]
... the problem is for the request
10:01:08 [jackjansen]
10:01:36 [raphael]
Yves: the plan is to use the comma in the request as a separator
10:01:42 [raphael]
zakim, ack Jack
10:01:42 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
10:02:30 [raphael]
Jack: people are aware that the fact we are using %escaping UTF-8 strings in the headers?
10:02:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate raphael
10:03:26 [silvia]
I can make these changes, yes
10:04:09 [silvia]
zakim, unmute me
10:04:09 [Zakim]
silvia should no longer be muted
10:04:44 [raphael]
Topic: 4. ISSUE-17
10:04:47 [silvia]
zakim, mute me
10:04:47 [Zakim]
silvia should now be muted
10:04:54 [raphael]
Silvia: we are waiting for i18n answer
10:05:03 [raphael]
Jack: we need to take a decision when they reply
10:05:20 [raphael]
Yves: it will be a LC issue
10:05:24 [raphael]
... no problem
10:05:29 [raphael]
Topic: 5. AOB
10:06:37 [raphael]
Raphael: Does WebM fit in our table?
10:07:04 [silvia]
thanks, bye!
10:07:07 [Zakim]
- +
10:07:08 [Zakim]
10:07:08 [Zakim]
10:07:10 [Zakim]
10:07:10 [jackjansen]
jackjansen has left #mediafrag
10:07:11 [Zakim]
10:07:16 [raphael]
ACTION: davy to add the WebM codec into our fitting table
10:07:17 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-180 - Add the WebM codec into our fitting table [on Davy Van Deursen - due 2010-06-30].
10:07:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate davy
10:07:46 [raphael]
Summary: document edited once more today, and then LCWD issue, publication hopefully tomorrow
10:07:54 [raphael]
[meeting adjourned]
10:07:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate raphael
10:08:42 [Zakim]
10:08:43 [Zakim]
IA_MFWG()5:00AM has ended
10:08:44 [Zakim]
Attendees were +, Yves, +0329331aabb, Erik, Davy, +31.20.592.aacc, Jack, +3539149aadd, Michael, +61.2.801.2.aaee, silvia
10:14:00 [raphael]
ScribeOptions: -final -noEmbedDiagnostics
10:14:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate raphael
10:14:28 [raphael]
zakim, bye
10:14:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #mediafrag
10:14:33 [raphael]
RRSAgent, bye
10:14:33 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items saved in :
10:14:33 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: troncy to address RTSP handling, pointing to the wiki page for the processing, making sure the syntax is stated to be generic [1]
10:14:33 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
10:14:33 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: davy to add the WebM codec into our fitting table [2]
10:14:33 [RRSAgent]
recorded in