14:59:14 RRSAgent has joined #html-media
14:59:14 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/08/13-html-media-irc
14:59:16 RRSAgent, make logs public
14:59:16 Zakim has joined #html-media
14:59:17 paulc has joined #html-media
14:59:18 Zakim, this will be 63342
14:59:18 ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
14:59:19 Meeting: HTML Media Task Force Teleconference
14:59:19 Date: 13 August 2013
14:59:56 chair: paulc
14:59:57 glenn has joined #html-media
15:00:03 davide has joined #html-media
15:00:41 zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:41 HTML_WG()11:00AM has not yet started, paulc
15:00:43 On IRC I see davide, glenn, paulc, Zakim, RRSAgent, joesteele, ddorwin, trackbot, wseltzer
15:01:11 trackbot, start meeting
15:01:13 RRSAgent, make logs public
15:01:15 Zakim, this will be 63342
15:01:16 Meeting: HTML Media Task Force Teleconference
15:01:16 Date: 13 August 2013
15:01:16 ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
15:01:19 markw has joined #html-media
15:01:28 zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:28 HTML_WG()11:00AM has not yet started, paulc
15:01:29 On IRC I see markw, davide, glenn, paulc, Zakim, RRSAgent, joesteele, ddorwin, trackbot, wseltzer
15:01:47 Trackbot seems to be a little slow today.
15:01:47 Sorry, paulc, I don't understand 'Trackbot seems to be a little slow today.'. Please refer to for help.
15:02:26 and the link does not work
15:02:29 zakim doesn't seem to be answering in IpCaller either
15:02:42 trackbot, start meeting
15:02:44 RRSAgent, make logs public
15:02:46 Zakim, this will be 63342
15:02:46 ok, trackbot; I see HTML_WG()11:00AM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago
15:02:47 Meeting: HTML Media Task Force Teleconference
15:02:47 Date: 13 August 2013
15:03:08 zakim, what is the code?
15:03:08 the conference code is 63342 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), paulc
15:03:20 adrianba has joined #html-media
15:03:25 zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:25 HTML_WG()11:00AM has not yet started, paulc
15:03:26 On IRC I see adrianba, markw, davide, glenn, paulc, Zakim, RRSAgent, joesteele, ddorwin, trackbot, wseltzer
15:03:38 zakim, start meeting
15:03:38 I don't understand 'start meeting', joesteele
15:04:11 zakim, this will be 63342
15:04:11 ok, glenn; I see HTML_WG()11:00AM scheduled to start 4 minutes ago
15:04:21 zakim, who's on the phone?
15:04:21 HTML_WG()11:00AM has not yet started, glenn
15:04:23 On IRC I see adrianba, markw, davide, glenn, paulc, Zakim, RRSAgent, joesteele, ddorwin, trackbot, wseltzer
15:04:39 markw_ has joined #html-media
15:04:47 rrsagent, generate minutes
15:04:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/08/13-html-media-minutes.html paulc
15:04:52 Zakim, who is on the phone ?
15:04:52 HTML_WG()11:00AM has not yet started, markw_
15:04:53 On IRC I see markw_, adrianba, markw, davide, glenn, paulc, Zakim, RRSAgent, joesteele, ddorwin, trackbot, wseltzer
15:04:59 zakim, this is HTML
15:05:00 agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Aug/0027.html
15:05:01 ok, glenn; that matches HTML_WG()11:00AM
15:05:13 zakim, who's on the phone?
15:05:13 On the phone I see +1.925.984.aaaa, [Microsoft], davide, Mark_Watson, glenn, ddorwin
15:05:16 scribe: joesteele
15:05:35 zakim, [Microsoft] has me
15:05:35 +paulc; got it
15:05:40 Zakim, Mark_Watson is me
15:05:40 +markw_; got it
15:05:47 zakim, aaaa is me
15:05:47 +joesteele; got it
15:05:58 +[Microsoft.a]
15:06:00 zakim, [Microsoft.a] is me
15:06:00 +adrianba; got it
15:06:19 johnsim has joined #html-media
15:06:29 topic: new bugs
15:06:45 topic: bug#22901
15:06:51 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22901
15:07:04 +[Microsoft.a]
15:07:15 paulc: at the top of the agenda to see if anything has been done
15:07:31 q+
15:07:48 ddorwin: I think we should not be executing arbitrary code
15:08:18 paulc: glenn, your reply #6 needs to be corrected to point to the bug
15:08:28 glenn: it depends on 22909
15:08:34 ... on your list for today
15:08:48 q+
15:09:22 zakim, who is on the phone?
15:09:22 On the phone I see joesteele, [Microsoft], davide, markw_, glenn, ddorwin, adrianba, [Microsoft.a]
15:09:25 [Microsoft] has paulc
15:09:36 zakim, [microsoft.a] is me
15:09:36 +johnsim; got it
15:09:40 paulc: so you want to process the new bug and come back?
15:09:48 glenn: yes -- need that to address this one
15:09:55 topic: bug#22909
15:10:04 ack me
15:10:07 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22909
15:11:56 glenn: my proposal is to add appropriate language to the security consideration sections that points out issues with interpretation of code in initialization data
15:12:00 Glenn's proposal is at: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22909#c1
15:13:15 joesteele: re: bug#22901 -- I was wondering if the argument for this is the application of BD+ to DASH content, BD+ would require interpreted code I believe
15:13:40 q+
15:13:43 paulc: assume folks need time to respond
15:13:45 ack me
15:14:01 glenn: proposal is just an outline - needs more discussion
15:14:12 ... experts should fill this in
15:14:27 ... would like to document these issues and wrap this up
15:14:29 ack dd
15:14:49 ddorwin: proposal seems to be related to content and key security rather than content excution
15:14:59 ... should not confuse DRM with client security
15:15:06 s/excution/execution/
15:15:22 jdsmith has joined #html-media
15:15:23 +[Microsoft.a]
15:15:25 glenn: intent was to address security concerns for implementors and secondly users of the EME funcionality
15:15:40 paulc: why is your comment about client not covered by x.2 section
15:16:00 ddorwin: the other things like don't run initData are to protect the client, different kinds of security
15:16:11 ... one is protecting the content provider, one is protecting the user
15:16:19 paulc: doe we need an x.3?
15:16:34 ddorwin: two examples given are not inline with other security related bugs
15:16:48 ... don;t need to specify how to protect keys to the DRM providers
15:17:10 glenn: not an expert in this subject, just listed some of the language from WebCrypto similarly named section
15:17:18 ... seemed potentially applicable
15:17:34 s/don;t/don't/
15:17:54 glenn: I suggest David comment in the bug and we capture other security considerations here as well
15:18:08 ddorwin: ok
15:18:17 topic: bug#22910
15:18:23 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22910
15:18:51 Glenn's proposal is in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22910#c1
15:19:02 glenn: proposal in comment #1 applies just like previous bugs comments
15:19:36 paulc: any comments? otherwise people need to review the proposal and comment
15:19:55 glenn: happy to take the lead on editing as people submit comments
15:19:57 q+
15:20:12 ... high level concern to whether adding two sections is a reaonable approach
15:20:16 ack ad
15:20:34 adrianba: just a reminder we had a discussion with the Privacy Interest group about EME
15:21:07 ... if there is a Privacy Consideration section being constructed should be communicated to them to ask for participation
15:22:03 ACTION: paulc to inform Privacy IG who we spoke to in Feb about bug 22910
15:22:03 Created ACTION-35 - Inform privacy ig who we spoke to in feb about bug 22910 [on Paul Cotton - due 2013-08-20].
15:22:06 adrianba: this was in the middle of February - Feb 17th
15:22:32 paulc: I will follow up on that
15:22:51 ACTION-34?
15:22:51 ACTION-34 -- Glenn Adams to Draft language on potential privacy considerations for bug 20965 -- due 2013-08-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:22:51 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/34
15:22:56 ... Glenn - you had an action to draft privacy considerations - can we makr that as done
15:22:58 ?
15:23:03 s/makr/mark/
15:23:12 close ACTION-34
15:23:13 Closed ACTION-34.
15:23:33 paulc: point to this bug if it is not already there
15:23:47 topic: previously discussed bugs
15:23:52 ACTION-34: see also https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22910
15:23:52 Notes added to ACTION-34 Draft language on potential privacy considerations for bug 20965.
15:23:59 topic: bug#18515
15:24:28 test
15:24:52 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18515#c12
15:25:12 paulc: David this is your comment
15:25:43 ddorwin: comment is whether we should actually modify the readyState
15:25:57 joesteele: can;t comment as I don't own a browser
15:26:12 q+
15:26:13 glenn: changing the readyState seems more correct, but your are correct it is more work
15:26:20 s/your are/you are/
15:26:20 ack ad
15:26:43 adrianba: haven't looked in detail yet, but Jerry and I would be ok taking an action to review and add comments
15:26:43 David's comment: Before we can work on proposed text, we need to decide whether we want to behave like certain readyStates, as in comment 7, or actually change the readyState, as in comment 8.
15:27:02 markw has joined #html-media
15:27:05 s/can;t/can't/
15:27:06 ACTION: adrianba to review David comment 12 on bug 18515 and provide feedback
15:27:06 Created ACTION-36 - Review david comment 12 on bug 18515 and provide feedback [on Adrian Bateman - due 2013-08-20].
15:27:28 topic: bug#20944
15:27:37 ACTION-32?
15:27:37 ACTION-32 -- Glenn Adams to Draft wiki page to register CDM key system names for bug 20944 -- due 2013-08-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:27:37 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/32
15:27:46 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944
15:27:50 paulc: any progress?
15:27:57 glenn: yes -- pointing to the draft
15:28:06 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/KeySystemRegistry
15:28:22 see comment https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944#c22
15:28:26 glenn: just a draft - not endorsed yet
15:28:39 ... see that Mark has already commented
15:29:02 mark's comment: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944#c23
15:29:09 markw: I think we could do more than is proposed, especially when the DRM is supported by the operating system
15:29:29 ... using public APIs for the OS, should be a specification somewhere saying how this is built using the public APIs
15:29:45 ... so we don't end up with incompatible implementations
15:29:54 paulc: how would you modify?
15:30:02 q+
15:30:05 markw: could add additional registration requirements
15:30:24 glenn: tried to make the reqs as minimum as possible, like to see the new reqs first
15:30:35 ack dd
15:31:02 ddorwin: tehcnical note - so key systems may be in front of the platform APIs in different ways -- needs to be accounted for
15:31:11 s/so key/some key/
15:31:20 markw: I can take an action
15:31:48 ... something to also consider is that if someone built a key system using APIs that are not public, can we encourage folks to use the public APIs
15:31:50 ACTION: markw to update wiki provided for bug 20944 to cover the case where the DRM is supporting by the OS
15:31:50 Created ACTION-37 - Update wiki provided for bug 20944 to cover the case where the drm is supporting by the os [on Mark Watson - due 2013-08-20].
15:31:54 ... to avoid the interop issue again
15:32:13 glenn: I did not use the term CDM in the draft - just key system
15:32:45 ... I wanted to make th registrant the determiner as to whether the system is open or not open without oversight from the W3C
15:32:59 ... like to get agreement on whether that is a good approach
15:33:12 ... and whether we should make judgement calls on this issue
15:33:45 markw: it is something we would like to encourage browser to be able to access the functionality in the OS
15:33:55 ... not sure there is anything that W3C can do to dictate this
15:34:03 ... but could encourage the outcomes we are looking for
15:34:18 ... there are capabilities that some browsers can access that others can not
15:34:20 +q
15:34:29 ... but would like to avoid the interop issue
15:34:43 ack john
15:35:08 johnsim: question about this bug - when you say "open" - do you mean a published API?
15:35:42 ... what about embedded environments (e.g. a TV) an there is no way to install a second browser, why would want to be discouraged?
15:35:50 s/an there/and there/
15:35:53 q+
15:36:08 paulc: you are asking - does that mfr have to register on the wiki?
15:36:29 johnsim: yes -- is every manfucturer supposed to register
15:36:55 glenn: I called out the "openness" with some text in the bug
15:37:28 ... if someone registered something as open it is up to them to decide the standards openness - must be prepared to defend that decision
15:37:41 johnsim: just trying to understand what you meant when you used the term
15:37:58 ... from a programming perspective, thought we were talking about a published API
15:38:19 ... other point is that all key systems are proprietary
15:38:36 glenn: but these are key systems - not DRM systems
15:39:03 ... second part of the question - should implementers be required? I think not
15:39:13 The wiki is covered by ACTION-32
15:39:16 ACTION-32
15:39:16 ACTION-32 -- Glenn Adams to Draft wiki page to register CDM key system names for bug 20944 -- due 2013-08-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:39:16 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/32
15:39:18 ... have another action to write text about the registration being recommended
15:39:30 paulc: believe this action can be closed as well
15:39:33 close ACTION-32
15:39:33 Closed ACTION-32.
15:39:50 paulc: please add a comment pointing to the comment on the bug
15:39:52 ACTION-33?
15:39:52 ACTION-33 -- Glenn Adams to Draft spec language for inclusions as note to address comment #15 of bug 20944 -- due 2013-08-13 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:39:52 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/33
15:40:07 paulc: is this still pending?
15:40:48 glenn: in the action item, I added a note about key systems being registered and a link to the registry
15:40:59 paulc: in action 33
15:41:09 ... recommend you put that in the bug as a comment
15:41:11 q+
15:41:12 glenn: will do
15:41:34 Under 1.2.2 Key System add: "Note: It is recommended that Key Systems by registered at http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/KeySystemRegistry."
15:41:55 The above text proposed by Glenn will be copied to bug 20944 to resolve comment #15
15:42:11 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944#c24
15:42:19 close action-33
15:42:19 Closed action-33.
15:42:28 q?
15:42:50 ack markw
15:43:07 markw: I think that the open section of this came from the original proposal by Robert Callahan
15:43:26 ... that was a much higher standard proposing implementation was opened so could be reimplemented
15:43:44 ... in case of end-of-life for the key system
15:43:53 ... to avoid losing the content
15:44:19 ... within the non-open section, gave an example of a TV,
15:44:32 ... I was more concerned about browsers that have OS access other browsers do not
15:45:12 ... don't need separate key system registrations for key systems that cross multiple devices, platfors
15:45:36 johnsim: very helpful
15:46:16 q+
15:46:22 ack ad
15:46:29 adrianba: question for glenn
15:46:57 ... recommended that key systems be registered, in RFC 2219 recommended are SHOULD - was that your intent
15:47:13 glenn: I used that phrase, because it appeared elsewhere
15:47:18 s/2219/2119/
15:47:20 ... a couple of lines above
15:47:45