See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 02 June 2015
<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Jun/0009.html
<scribe> Scribenick: paulc
ACTION-84?
<trackbot> ACTION-84 -- Paul Cotton to (really rustamk) to update uses cases and arrange for further discussion -- due 2015-04-22 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/84
Status: No progress and no report.
ACTION-86?
<trackbot> ACTION-86 -- David Dorwin to Send an update on bug 27269 -- due 2015-06-30 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/86
David changed the due date to June 30 and was looking for other input.
ACTION-90?
<trackbot> ACTION-90 -- Paul Cotton to Update bug 20944 if the tf goes ahead with work on generic license request/response protocol -- due 2015-05-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/90
<scribe> Pending.
ACTION;92?
Action-92?
<trackbot> Action-92 -- Paul Cotton to Build a generic wiki agenda for future tf meetings -- due 2015-04-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/92
<scribe> Pending.
ACTION-93?
<trackbot> ACTION-93 -- Paul Cotton to Get in touch with webappsec wg about the "privileged context" which is more generic than saying https, etc." (really on bob lund) -- due 2015-05-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/93
Bob Lund responded on June 1 that he is working on this with no firm completion date.
Three new bug 28710, 28727 and 27982 are MSE bugs
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28710
Matt: This bug is about TrackBuffer and may be a duplicate.
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28727
Matt: This one is interesting and
is related to my work on Chromium. Related to Coded Frame
Removal.
... I will follow up on this bug
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27982
paulc: This is not new but is realted 28727.
Matt: I will take up this item since I will be looking at 28727.
paulc: Matt - what is the progress here?
Matt: No progress on these since I have been working on Chromium problems and the CR test suite.
jdsmith: Can we prioritize the CR test suite to make some progress?
<MattWolenetz> paul, are you online?
paulc: Could Matt send out a test suite report so Jerry can get engaged and use the MSE tests on his implementation?
matt: yes and I am building a FAQ on how to use the existing tests
ISSUE-45: Remove "persistent-release-message" MediaKeySessionType
<trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-45 .
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/45
Mark: We agree to restore this at
the F2F and I did my action item to provide text.
... David appears to be only one hesitant to put this feature
back in.
... It was in the document for a long and there was no
agreement to remove it.
paulc: Is this a disagreement
about whether we put the feature back in and then fix it OR we
get agreement on how to fix the feature before we put it back
in.
... Is that a correct description David?
davidd: I am not yet convinced that it works or can be made to work across all clients.
markw: The group has NOT agreed
to remove this feature and it is supported by other
(non-Google) browers.
... I did the pull request four weeks ago and in the face of no
agreement to remove this I would like this added back to the
document.
paulc: Why can't you add this back and then mark it with issues?
davidd: Because people use its
existence in the spec as proof that the feature has to be
maintained.
... The text removal was small and we need to define this
feature before we put it back.
markw: There is very little difference between what I have proposed and what was there before.
paulc: Let's continue this discussion for two weeks more and try to get a consensus on this feature. If we cannot I may be forced to recommend an action.
markw: I would like to suggest we have some sort of understanding on how to handle controversial changes. I would like to see change all done via pull requests that can be debated.
paulc: Maybe David can do a new summary of why he is concerned about this feature and that will permit others (other than markw) to catch up on the matter.
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/63
under active discussion
markw: our procedure need to be aligned with the privacy sections to follow the TAG advice
davidd: I agree with mark that we need to fix the normative text and we are figuring out how to do that
markw: Do you agree that the normative text should include the "inform the user" case?
davidd: I believe so but I am a little fuzzy on this.
markw: Q1; Is informing users an
option at all?
... Q2: Do we need to contraint when that the informing users
case is used?
... For Q2 I would prefer that the normative procedures include
both cases of informing users and gaining consent and work
separately on the case where the UI has a constraint?
<markw> Q2: should explicit consent be required when the UI for clearing identifier si not good enough
davidd: The word RECOMMENDED (not required) is used and partially covers the case.
<markw> Here is my latest proposal: If the User Agent requires explicit user consent for the use of Distinctive Identifiers and if there is no persisted consent covering accumulated configuration for the origin, request user consent to use Distinctive Identifier(s).
davidd: not sure how to remove
the RECOMMENDED word without leaving a hole
... I do agree with the first case and would prefer to get it
all right at once
... I will reply in the bug
markw: I am concerned that the
act of defining if a UI is sufficient may drag on the solution
for too long.
... I would like to get this done ASAP rather than dragging
this out
davidd: I want to take the text and turn it into algorithmic text
markw: <missed text>
davidd; <missed answer>
paulc: I suggest we take this into ISSUE-63 and try to get this done ASAP.
<markw> My concern is that making normative procedures contingent on the nature of the user interface is unusual and could cause this to drag out
We go email consensus on these new issues this week.
Paul is travelling next week and cannot chair.
<markw> If we can solve this quickly, by reference to existing text, that would be great, but if not I'd prefer to address the main issue of the mismatch between the Privacy section and the normative procedures first
Could we meet in two weeks on Jun 16?
Matt: fine with me
markw: Sure
davidd: oka
jdsmith: okay
So we will meet on Jun 16 and do both MSE and EME at that meeting.
davidd: no progress on this
paulc; should I reach out to Robin for help?
davidd: sure
<scribe> ACTION: paul to get Robin's assistance to turn out automatic publishing on /TR for EME Editor's draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/06/02-html-media-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Get robin's assistance to turn out automatic publishing on /tr for eme editor's draft [on Paul Cotton - due 2015-06-09].
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140 of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found ScribeNick: paulc Inferring Scribes: paulc WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: ISSUE-45 Mark MattWolenetz Microsoft Q2 Scribenick Status aaaa davidd ddorwin html-media https jdsmith joined markw matt paulc trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Jun/0009.html Found Date: 02 Jun 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/06/02-html-media-minutes.html People with action items: paul[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]