16:01:34 RRSAgent has joined #html-media
16:01:34 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/05-html-media-irc
16:01:51 Zakim has joined #html-media
16:02:01 trackbot, start telcon
16:02:04 RRSAgent, make logs public
16:02:06 Zakim, this will be 63342
16:02:06 ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()11:00AM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago
16:02:07 Meeting: HTML Media Task Force Teleconference
16:02:07 Date: 05 February 2013
16:02:27 BobLund has joined #html-media
16:02:35 kstreeter_ has joined #html-media
16:02:40 scribe: joesteele
16:02:42 ddorwin has joined #html-media
16:02:59 zakim, list
16:02:59 I see IA_Team()10:00AM, SW_HCLS()11:00AM, HTML_WG()11:00AM, RWC_PEWG()11:00AM, SW_SWSTR()9:00AM active
16:03:01 also scheduled at this time are WAI_(WCAG2ICT)10:00AM, T&S_XMLSEC()10:00AM, VB_VBWG()10:00AM, Team_Validat()11:00AM, XML_ET-TF()11:00AM, RWC_WebEven()11:00AM, SW_RIF()11:00AM,
16:03:01 ... SW_(SPARQL)10:00AM, WAI_UAWG(CHAIRS)10:30AM
16:03:17 how do I get zakim to list phone numbers?
16:03:26 zakim, what is the code?
16:03:26 the conference code is 63342 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), paulc
16:03:47 chair: Paul Cotton
16:03:50 zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:51 HTML_WG()11:00AM has not yet started, adrianba
16:03:51 On IRC I see ddorwin, kstreeter_, BobLund, Zakim, RRSAgent, Mick_Hakobyan, paulc, joesteele, pal, chriho, glenn, adrianba, johnsim, trackbot
16:03:59 zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:00 HTML_WG()11:00AM has not yet started, paulc
16:04:00 On IRC I see ddorwin, kstreeter_, BobLund, Zakim, RRSAgent, Mick_Hakobyan, paulc, joesteele, pal, chriho, glenn, adrianba, johnsim, trackbot
16:04:04 zakim, this is HTML_WG
16:04:04 ok, adrianba; that matches HTML_WG()11:00AM
16:04:07 trackbot-ng, start telcon
16:04:09 RRSAgent, make logs public
16:04:10 thank you, I see it remembered my phone #
16:04:11 Zakim, this will be 63342
16:04:11 ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()11:00AM scheduled to start 4 minutes ago
16:04:12 Meeting: HTML Media Task Force Teleconference
16:04:12 Date: 05 February 2013
16:04:17 zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:18 I notice HTML_WG()11:00AM has restarted
16:04:18 On the phone I see joesteele, pal, [Microsoft], Michael_Thornburgh, +1.425.269.aaaa, KevinStreeter, ddorwin, [Microsoft.a], ??P14
16:04:24 Scribe: joesteele
16:04:28 zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
16:04:28 +adrianba; got it
16:04:28 Chair: Paul Cotton
16:04:39 zakim, aaaa is me
16:04:39 +johnsim; got it
16:04:40 zakim, [Microosft] has paulc
16:04:40 sorry, paulc, I do not recognize a party named '[Microosft]'
16:04:53 *6
16:04:55 zakim, [Microsoft] has paulc
16:04:55 +paulc; got it
16:05:14 acolwell has joined #html-media
16:05:19 zakim, p14 is me
16:05:19 sorry, BobLund, I do not recognize a party named 'p14'
16:05:33 zakim, ??p14 is me
16:05:33 +BobLund; got it
16:05:48 zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:49 On the phone I see joesteele, pal, [Microsoft], Michael_Thornburgh, johnsim, KevinStreeter, ddorwin, adrianba, BobLund
16:05:50 [Microsoft] has paulc
16:05:54 +Aaron_Colwell
16:05:56 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Feb/0002.html
16:06:27 Topic: Agenda/Roll call/Scribe
16:06:29 done
16:06:38 Topic: Previous minutes
16:06:46 paulc: no comments
16:06:54 Topic: Review Action items
16:07:00 paulc: none outstanding
16:07:04 Topic: baseline docs
16:07:08 +[Microsoft.a]
16:07:20 paulc: Editors draft updated Jan 22 -- any updates since then?
16:07:23 jdsmith has joined #html-media
16:07:27 ddorwin: no
16:07:53 Editors draft: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html
16:08:05 Topic: Candidate FPWD
16:08:09 paulc: stalled
16:08:24 MartinSoukup has joined #html-media
16:08:24 FPWD candidate: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media-fpwd.html
16:09:02 paulc: folks on call have been participating - chairs met with W3C team and trying to figure out how to handle dissent versus support
16:09:09 paulc: expect a breakthru this week
16:09:23 ?1: any data available?
16:09:38 + +1.613.491.aabb
16:09:51 s/?1/pal/
16:09:59 zakim, aabb is martinsoukup
16:09:59 +martinsoukup; got it
16:10:13 paulc: no questions at this time -- no missing information
16:10:31 paulc: lets spend time on the bugs
16:10:41 Topic: Outstanding Bugs
16:10:56 http://tinyurl.com/7tfambo
16:11:19 paulc: 32 bugs this weekend - some discussion with editors about which to cover and build two lists to look at under 6/7
16:11:31 paulc: 7 is a batch of bugs from David
16:11:38 paulc: error related bugs
16:11:55 ddorwin: bug list looks incorrect -- 6/7 run togethers
16:12:21 paulc: ok - let's look at B-F and A-D -- could do them in the order specified
16:12:30 paulc: or someone suggest an order
16:12:40 ddorwin: B has been discussed for two calls
16:13:04 paulc: not sure whether we wanted to talk about this one
16:13:25 paulc: I am ok with skipping
16:14:02 joesteele: I am ok as well
16:14:28 Bug -- Should we validate defaultURL/destinationURL? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Jan/0062.html
16:14:28 Should we validate?
16:14:29 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Jan/0062.html
16:14:50 paulc: believe this message is from David
16:15:28 Good morning Adrian.
16:15:44 ddorwin: background is -- when adding this to webkit, got the feedback that this should be a URL
16:15:57 ddorwin: this implementation does validation of the URL
16:16:08 ddorwin: so I sent to the list
16:16:26 ddorwin: otherwise need to push back on Webkit folks
16:16:48 adrianba: problem here is - where is the definition of the validation?
16:17:14 adrianba: not a big enough issue for us to try and solve
16:17:45 adrianba: (last part is a question)
16:18:22 adrianba: we run into this issue when one UA does different validation, one is considered a bug when its just underspecified
16:18:38 -BobLund
16:18:50 paulc: you are asking a question about where this is specified?
16:19:04 adrianba: no -- if we require it -- where is it specified? extra work for us
16:19:23 ddorwin: makes sense -- we should specify one way or the other
16:19:28 ... or this will be a bug
16:19:44 +??P14
16:19:46 ... I will take action item to look where we are using this type
16:19:55 zakim, ??p14 is me
16:19:55 +BobLund; got it
16:20:03 paulc: you will open a bug one way ot the other based on research
16:20:19 ddorwin: Adrians reasoning was good -- maybe reply to email so we have a record
16:20:36 Bug 17199 -Provide examples for and get feedback on Key Release https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17199
16:20:50 q+
16:20:50 ddorwin: Mark is not here -- should skip
16:21:13 paulc: Mick is here -- ok with skipping?
16:21:20 Mick: ok
16:21:21 Bug 19810 -Should key IDs be required in content and addKey()'s parameter? https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19810
16:21:23 q-
16:21:45 paulc: no updates for a while
16:21:59 ddorwin: original spec handled the case where media did not have key ids
16:22:18 ... should we eliminate the handling to simplify the algorithm
16:22:28 ... current formats specify this
16:22:34 q+
16:22:40 q+
16:22:48 ... would this cause problems for anyone
16:22:50 ack martin
16:23:13 MartinSoukup: HLS also uses a key ID
16:23:32 johnsim: my point was that key ids could be overwritten
16:23:47 ... or provided by the application or metadata
16:24:08 ... what provisions are in the spec for this?
16:24:20 ddorwin: in the addKey definition and the encrypted block algorithm
16:24:20 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html#dom-update
16:24:48 ddorwin: could drop the decision login around the key ID
16:25:16 johnsim: I agree with you then -- should always be there at this point in the algorithm
16:25:46 ddorwin: 3 formats we have talked about all have it -- propose to eliminate it.
16:25:53 +1
16:25:57 ack johnsim
16:26:13 rrsagent, draft minutes
16:26:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/02/05-html-media-minutes.html joesteele
16:26:24 Bug 20798 -keySystem strings should be compared case-sensitively https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20798
16:26:36 paulc: last updated last week
16:27:07 adrianba: this is about how you should look at the keysystem string
16:27:19 ... some questions from Microsoft people about this
16:27:27 ... not described in the spec
16:27:32 +q
16:27:43 adrianba: propose case sensitive spec
16:28:03 ... looks like reverse domain names which are not commonly case sensitive
16:28:08 ... we need to specifiy
16:28:22 paulc: did that answer your question David?
16:28:36 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=800600
16:28:43 ddorwin: I just had some initial thoughts -- found another bug
16:28:43 David's questions: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20798#c1
16:29:11 ddorwin: some specs do not mention - canPLayType does not mention
16:29:18 ddorwin: should say something
16:29:39 paulc: Adrian your recommendation was case-sensitive?
16:30:03 paulc: sounds like we need to specify
16:30:32 paulc: do you know what the behavior of IE is?
16:31:10 joesteele: what about Unicode strings?
16:31:16 Zakim, ack joestelee
16:31:16 I see joesteele on the speaker queue
16:31:24 Zakim, ack joesteele
16:31:24 I see no one on the speaker queue
16:31:26 ack joes
16:31:39 adrianba: could be a Unicode string -- David raised this
16:31:51 ... in the end it is just a string
16:32:17 Bug 20338 -Explicitly specify whether initData is required for Clear Key https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20338
16:32:22 paulc: skip this for now
16:32:48 paulc: (never mind -- bad scribing)
16:33:01 ddorwin: currently allows data and type to be optional
16:33:13 ... not clear whether ClearKey supports this
16:33:30 ... propose to make it clear whether it is optional -- leaning towards not optional
16:33:34 +1
16:33:42 +1
16:33:43 +1
16:33:48 paulc: any other opinions?
16:34:01 ddorwin: great -- sounds like a decision
16:34:09 Bug 20688 -Provide more details on when keyadded should be fired https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20688
16:34:36 ddorwin: keyAdded was originally intended to indicate a key was added this was important
16:34:52 ... key add could also be seen as a response to add key
16:34:58 -BobLund
16:35:05 ... bug to define when this is fired
16:35:18 +q
16:35:38 +??P14
16:35:48 ddorwin: most of this is in the bug
16:35:48 zakim, ??p14 is me
16:35:48 +BobLund; got it
16:36:12 ddorwin: new unique key, update operation, key renewal are all possibles
16:36:15 Possible purposes:
16:36:15 1) New (unique) key added.
16:36:15 2) New key info added, possibly for an existing key.
16:36:15 3) update() operation completed successfully, regardless of whether it involved addition of a key. (This would likely result in renaming this method.)
16:36:16
16:36:16 Example questions to address:
16:36:16 * Should keyadded be fired once for each key that is added (if a license contains multiple keys)?
16:36:17 q+
16:36:17 * Should keyadded be fired if the key was already known?
16:36:17 * Should keyadded be fired if the license/key policy was updated?
16:36:17 * Should keyadded be fired for successful completion of update() when no further messages need to be sent to the server?
16:37:00 ack joes
16:38:15 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20689
16:38:23 joesteele: would like to use this channel for generic comm -- does this interact?
16:38:27 "Specify how CDM should indicate successful completion with no message for server"
16:38:43 ddorwin: same as last possible use of add Key
16:39:04 +q
16:39:07 joesteele: does this mean ready to play?
16:39:16 ddorwin: question is -- what should it mean?
16:39:23 Zakim, ack joesteele
16:39:23 I see adrianba, johnsim on the speaker queue
16:39:23 ack adrian
16:39:43 adrianba: mental model for this I will describe
16:39:52 ... may need an additional event
16:40:16 ... way I have in mind is that they are for working with the session representing comm with the license server
16:40:35 ... after a create session, I get either a key message to send to license server
16:40:50 ... or I get told that all of the information is already there -- which is key added
16:40:59 ... end of that comm has been reached
16:41:28 ... keyadded simply means the session comm has succesfully completed
16:41:40 ... could be multiple keys, but you should not expect another key message
16:41:48 paulc; any repsonse?
16:41:51 ack johnsim
16:42:27 johnsim: I had a similar perception to Adrian
16:42:41 ... are there other events we need to define?
16:43:10 ... not suggesting they do need to be, but if there are distinct events do they need to be identified?
16:43:12 q+
16:43:34 ddorwin: I like Adrians model - less ambiguity
16:43:44 ack ddor
16:43:45 ... maybe not as use case for key added as defined
16:44:03 q+
16:44:09 ... could be multiple key message transactions in progress though
16:44:23 ... meaning could be ambiguous then
16:44:41 ack adrian
16:44:56 adrianba: expectation is that other messages from the CDM would be in a different session
16:45:05 ... maybe I created a different session
16:45:15 ... sessions would correllate that way
16:45:28 ... session would be waiting for the update in that case
16:45:39 s/correllate/correlate/
16:45:52 adrianba: would mean end of that conversation thread
16:46:09 ddorwin: I did not mean that would be the end of conversation
16:46:25 ... one variation would be a renewal request
16:46:30 +q
16:46:40 ... this would prompt the app to try again
16:46:56 ... this scenario could be handled fine
16:47:06 ... just need to define it correctly
16:47:08 -q
16:47:36