Content protection

Clarke: HTML WG meets after this group
... Will try to resolve where work gets done
... Our charter provides fb on APIs regardless of where work gets done on content protection

RRSAgent scribe Russell Berkoff

Clarke: Next item - discussion of req document for content prot
... Create skeleton

<kaz> MPTF dashboard page

Clarke: See home network TF document

Clarke: Front pg on dash board - Things for content protection
... Discuss requirements for Content Prot
... Critique ones listed currently (requirements)
... MPTF taks no position on users, owners and SPs
... For content protection

Glenn: Change "contract" to "legal agreement (e.g., contract)"

Clarke: Obj for MPTF is to provide terms for those agreements
... Concentrate on technical solutions for techical issues
... System Will not guarantee misues of content per Content Protection contract

Bob: Goal to meet Content Protection agreements

Jason: Requirements may vary greatly

Bob: Need to address union of Content Protection requirements

Clarke: Range of agreements between parties

<joesteele> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/HTML_Content_Protection_Requirements

Jason: Should include background info in Content Protection doc on MPTF page

Clarke: 2nd bullet - Content protection must specify rights in Content Protection agreements
... Various parties in CP agreements
... Working through rights for parties

Joe: CP protection must be implementable in open browsers?

Clarke: Change requirement to should (from must)

<glenn> may be difficult to define "open browser"

Clarke: CP system must not advantage one method over another
... DTCP vs IP

Jason: Agnostic to CP method
... We're not providing CP system

Jason: APIs should not advantage one particular method

Clarke: Should have baseline method

Jason: Why make baseline method mandatory?
... Clear-key is mandatory method

Joe: we should have a mandatory method, whether or not paid SPs will use it

Clarke: Additional comment on baseline method?

MarkW: Change required to recommended?
... Unwise to mandate method

Clarke: Change to should?

MarkW: OpenSource implementation a requirement?

Clarke: May want to consider later?

mav: CP solutions must work with OpenSource browsers?

MarkW: Don't need whole system implementable in OpenSource browsers

<glenn> in other words, the basic mechanism should be implementable in O/S, but specific CDM implementations may not be implementable, due to technical or licensing reasons

Clarke: Changed wording CP methods miust work with OpenSource browsers (vs implementable in)

mav: Must address HTML5 features

Clarke: CP must be usable in HTML5
... Must be usable w/TimedTracks etc

Jason: Must or Should?

?: Feature should be covered by CP when available

acolwell: Copying to Canvas disable for protected content?

<glenn> need to distinguish between features available during encryption vs features available during copy protection/drm regime; they may be different

Clarke: Other discussion?
... Added link for Adaptive Bit Rate
... Aaron joined us today from Google

Aaron: Working with MarkW

Clarke: Closing meeting
... See folks on HTML5 call