21:56:02 RRSAgent has joined #mediawg 21:56:06 logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/02/13-mediawg-irc 21:56:06 Zakim has joined #mediawg 21:57:07 Meeting: Media WG meeting 21:57:20 Agenda: https://github.com/w3c/media-wg/blob/main/meetings/2024-02-13-Media_Working_Group_Teleconference-agenda.md 21:58:53 tidoust has joined #mediawg 22:01:35 present+ Youenn_Fablet, Bernard_Aboba, Chris_Needham, Francois_Daoust, Jan-Ivar_Bruaroey 22:01:50 present+ Greg_Freedman, Dale_Curtis 22:02:26 present+ Tommy_Steimel 22:03:11 present+ Sun_Shin, Marcos_Caceres 22:03:16 Chair: Chris_Needham, Marcos_Caceres 22:05:05 present+ Mark_Foltz 22:05:36 scribe+ cpn 22:06:05 marcosc has joined #mediawg 22:07:28 TOPIC: Media Session API 22:07:53 cn: who would like to give us an update? 22:09:45 youen: started writing a PR for setMicrophoneActive etc on issue 312 ... expand it to screen share too. maybe in the future we might be able to support other devices. Will continue to work with folks on that and hopefully get it merged 22:11:28 youen: we need the media session to support muting various devices, but due to a lack of UI, we don't need to support it just yet. We can look at extended parts of the API to mute/unmute devices based on device IDs. This might not be a "V1" thing, maybe we do this as an extension 22:12:57 jib: we might not want to support multiple devices. Similarly for media conferences, there is already good support already in browsers and on keyboards. There is privacy concerns, particularly with multiple cameras or mics, that all of them get muted... not selectively. 22:13:12 ts: that makes sense. There is no strong use cases for this right now 22:13:41 Cn: what would be the expected behavior be if there is a single mute button? 22:14:21 youen: it would toggle all of them. If some track is already muted, then all of them would get muted... they would all be put in sync 22:14:44 jib: so it's like a privacy shield across all of them. All get toggled off or on 22:15:15 cn: we have a number of issues open, and I'm wondering what we need to do to get to CR status? 22:15:27 youen: we need to triage them together with Tommy 22:15:33 cn: that would be great 22:15:51 cn: so yeah, we could look at test coverage too 22:16:36 ts: yeah, it's not entirely clear what we need to do to move everything forward 22:17:01 youen: we need multiple implementations for everything 22:17:31 youen: we might move things to a different spec 22:17:35 q+ 22:18:08 mc: we only need that to go to rec, but we can sit in CR indefinitely, and get the IPR commitments 22:18:29 ... features not implemented across multiple implementations can be marked as at-risk 22:18:46 ... they can be left in CR for a reasonable amount of time 22:18:59 ... I'd caution against extension specs, they can become a bit of a mess 22:19:10 ... We have a process in place for having things well tested 22:19:30 jan-ivar: GH has milestones, so can have one for CR and one for extensions 22:19:49 mc: whatever process works, so GH milestones can be good 22:20:21 q- 22:20:27 yf: we currently have P1 and P2, a v1 milestone with 14 issues to resolve to get to that milestone 22:21:21 cn: wether we take it through to REC or leave it in CR is a discussion to have in the future. So long as we can show interop 22:21:41 fd: you don't even need an implementation to go to CR for some things 22:21:54 mfoltzgoogle has joined #mediawg 22:21:58 TOPIC: MSE 22:22:46 cn: we've merged the managed media source into the main spec. What's now the process for adding test? 22:23:05 mc: it's for me and jean-jves to bring over tests already written 22:23:27 ... two parts: as the spec lands in TR, there's a script that picks it up and adds the interfaces to WPT 22:23:40 ... We add additional tests there for the IDL stuff. Then we need to exercise what we can from the API 22:24:17 ... It can get more complicated from there. WebDriver will drive pressing buttons to play a video, but because we don't run WPT on real devices, the managed part isn't really testable 22:24:34 ... So need to figure out what's testable. Some will need to confirm manually. We'll get as much coverage as we can 22:25:16 cn: I'm planning to re-read what is in the spec. 22:26:37 cn: Matt who used edit the spec is no longer as editor of the spec or as en invited expert, unfortunately. So we are looking for editors potentially for "MSE byte stream format registry" and "WebM byte stream format" 22:27:23 cn: I don't anticipate much work needed on those documents. There is just some small maintenance work on them, so we would love some volunteers to help us out. 22:28:03 fd: on the short term, we need to republish them. To republish, we need an editor who is in the working group. 22:28:53 mc: we could do as chairs, but ideally good to have volunteers 22:29:41 cn: ideally we would love some help. Please let us know. 22:29:56 TOPIC: Media Capabilities 22:30:33 cn: there are two issues (213).... regarding support for dynamic metadata 22:30:55 cn: of various types as described in the issue 22:32:30 Jn: I was asked about this by some folks... I was unsure if the platform gets to pick one or if they are used together. If there are multiple types available, then the platform should pick... but I don't have an answer for exactly how it would work when in combination. The API doesn't support that. 22:32:56 jn: we might need an enhancement (enum) to allow us to support specific combinations 22:33:20 jn: instead of trying to handle them all combined 22:33:39 cn: what about how we deal with the registry 22:34:01 jn: I don't have a good answer for that... specially for non-public metadata types 22:34:12 cn: what's the next steps? 22:34:36 jn: it might be good to reach out to an expert that would know how the combination of metadata would work. 22:34:52 cn: yes, I could write a reply to the issue 22:35:05 jn: I'm happy to respond to the issue (213) 22:35:51 cn: the second was related to capability negotiation, that came in with the issue (???) 22:36:16 cn: the current PR doesn't address the privacy issues I don't believe. 22:36:34 ba: you might be right. If you have suggestion to improve it, that would be great 22:36:48 cn: I'm not an RTC expert, but can try 22:37:18 ab: still working with trying to work with PING to address their concerns 22:37:27 ab: but yes, I'm open to guidance here. 22:38:16 ab: there is a lot of software implementations... which may or may not be power efficient. Just we don't differentiate on power efficiency, but it may or may not help address PING's issues 22:38:24 cn: I'll also give this more thoughts 22:39:36 cn: I commented in issue 217... but the feedback seems to questioning our entire approach. We might need to write some words that compare the multiple approaches as a way to address the concerns of PING 22:39:54 ba: there are a lot of consideration when choosing a codec 22:39:56 q+ 22:40:52 ba: there are a11y concerns... do browsers have access to that? 22:41:12 jn: the browser is in a better position to make that determination 22:41:58 jn: similarly with device thermals, etc. the user agent is in a better position to make those determinations. 22:42:38 mc: to that point, looking at how we approached managed media source, serves as a good model for addressing these concerns 22:43:00 ... the UA and the platform is in a better position to do this, saves all the websites having to create UI, what Jer said 22:43:45 cn: I need to take another look and talk to Mark etc. about all this. 22:44:03 ba: this is a general and larger discussion we should definitely have 22:44:43 cn: that's all for now for media capabilities. I did some triaging there, but we have a lot of open pull requests. 22:45:10 cn: as chairs we can help out with things, but we need experts to continue to move things forward 22:45:18 TOPIC: EME 22:46:49 cn: we've made some progress on the HTTP Version Registry. There is a PR ready to go. It has the criteria and all the relevant specs and versions. The main thing it needs now is on the spec itself. Right now we have an enum, so we need to remove that from the EME spec... we would need to change that to the DOMString instead in the spec (to behave the same as an enum) 22:46:58 gf: I will do that change 22:47:25 cn: do we need a formal call for consensus for publishing the registry? 22:47:36 fd: yes, that would be ideal 22:48:07 cn: when Greg has done the changes, we can move to the Call for Consensus. 22:48:31 fd: we could combine everything into a single CFC 22:49:49 cn: we've got some feedback in issue #522 with security concerns with EME. An attacker could renew a license and get an extended period of service. Has anyone had a look yet and want to discuss? 22:51:10 JP: I've looked into this and reached out to some folks. The relevant folks who understand this have been pinged and waiting to hear back. I'll ask for some clarifications in the bug about some things that were unclear. 22:52:23 Jn: We have shared the report with the relevant teams at Apple. We don't believe WebKit is affected. But it seems. reasonable to change the spec to only allow passing in the cert at creation time. 22:53:18 jp: I also don't see why you would change the cert dynamically after creation. So long as everyone is onboard and it's web compatible, when I'm in favor of the change. I'm still a little bit unclear on some aspects, but it seems like it wouldn't hurt to update the spec 22:53:40 cn: would it be useful to have them (the sec researchers) join a call? 22:53:49 cn: they offered to do that 22:54:03 jp: no objections 22:54:12 jn: it would be great 22:54:51 cn: I'll get back to them and see if we can get them to join in a few weeks 22:55:19 TOPIC: next meeting 22:55:40 cn: next meeting March 12. But we can have another meeting as needed. 22:55:46 cn: there is a W3C breakout day 22:55:53 cn: on that day. 22:56:46 cn: what it does mean is that our time slot overlaps with this time... so we might need to have an alternative time to not clash. We will confirm that nearer the date. 22:57:21 cn: having said that, please propose a session as it's a good way to promote and showcase ideas and make a proposal 22:57:38 https://www.w3.org/2024/03/breakouts-day-2024/ 22:57:39 cn: there is GitHub repo 22:57:51 cn: please propose ideas there 👆 22:57:53 https://github.com/w3c/breakouts-day-2024/issues 22:58:22 cn: that's all for today. 22:59:31 jer: I want to pitch an idea for next media. We would like to discuss spatial video. So would like to discuss display and decoding, and where things fall short on the current web platform APIs 22:59:55 s/jer:/jn:/ 23:00:19 cn: would you be interested in maybe presenting that in an related interest group? 23:00:49 jn: yes, perhaps 23:02:47 rrsagent, draft minutes 23:02:48 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/02/13-mediawg-minutes.html cpn 23:02:53 rrsagent, make log public