Re: EME Bugs filed after CfC decision and before Feb 15

Overall, I think the progress shown in addressing these bugs is reasonable and demonstrates good faith effort. Specific comments below:

On Apr 23, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:

> When there were objections to the first FPWD CfC for EME the Chairs issued a email about the lack of consensus:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0123.html
> that requested:
>  
> “Examining the objections related to the question as to whether the
> candidate FPWD contains enough information to be implemented
> interoperably, the chairs found that much of the input on this has
> lacked specifics, so at this time we are putting out a call for clear
> and specific bug reports to be filed against the Encrypted Media
> Extensions component in bugzilla[1] by February 15th.  Once that is
> complete, we will seek an recommendation by the EME editors on how to
> proceed with these bugs.”
>  
> At several Feb EME Media TF meetings we processed the bugs that were filed after the FPWD CfC and before Feb 15.  I have recorded below how the Editors and TF processed these bugs and notes there current status.  I am hoping that this record will help us process this at the current HTML WG F2F meeting.
>  
> EME Bugs filed after CfC and before Feb 15:
>  
> 1) Bug 20944 EME should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop, and can be different per-user/device.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944
> Status: OPEN and item added to SOTD to describe this bug.

I would love to see signs of more progress towards resolving this, as I believe it is the Since there isn't a quick fix, holding this item open seems reasonable.

>  
> 2) Bug 20960 EME is not limited to video.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20960
> Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20960#c12

I agree with the editors that the spec is sufficiently clear. I would be inclined to mark it WORKSFORME rather than WONTFIX as the problem claimed in the bug doesn't exist afaict.

>  
> 3) Bug 20961 EME depends on privileged access to the users computer which is not technically available.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20961
> Status: RESOVLED WONTFIX
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20961#c8

Seems to address a topic that is out of scope for the spec; resolution seems reasonable.

>  
> 4) Bug 20962 EME depends on patented technology.
>  https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20962  
>  Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20962#c4

Seems to address a topic that is out of scope for the spec; resolution seems reasonable.

>  
> 5) Bug 20963 EME is technically incomplete
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20963
> Status: RESOLVED NEEDSINFO and then REOPENED with no new information
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20963#c14

I agree with judgment of the editors that this bug is not specific enough to be actionable (just look at the title!). I would recommend re-closing it.

>  
> 6) Bug 20964 EME depends on servers with a finite life.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20964
> Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20964#c28

I agree with the resolution.

>  
> 7) Bug 20965 EME results in a loss of control over security and privacy.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965  
> Status: OPEN and item added to SOTD to describe this bug and then RE-OPENED
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965#c29

I'm not clear on how this bug got reopened when it was already open (?!) but open with a SOTD item seems reasonable at this time.

>  
> 8) Bug 20966 EME design trivializes the demanded loss of control of security and privacy demanded.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20966
> Status: Open and item added to SOTD to describe this bug and then RE-OPENED
> OPEN and item added to SOTD to describe this bug

I'm not clear on how this bug got reopened when it was already open (?!) but open with a SOTD item seems reasonable at this time.

>  
> 9) Bug 20967 EME does not allow independent implementation, excluding open source implementations.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20967
> Status: RESOLVED NEEDSINFO
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20967#c5

I agree that the bug is lacking in specifics.

>  
> 10) Bug 20968 EME depends on legal sanctions to succeed and this is not a matter that can be addressed here.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20968
> Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20968#c5

Resolution seems correct.

>  
> 11) Bug 20978 Just an API for encouraging the use of proprietary plugins
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20978
> Status: RESOLVES WONTFIX
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20978#c2

Agreed that this is out of scope.

>  
> 12) Bug 20992 EME should define or reference a platform-independent VM in which CDMs will run
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20992
> Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 20944
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20992#c3

Duplicate seems correct.

>  
> 13) Bug 21016 Please split Clear Key into a separate optional specification
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016  
> Status: RESOLVED LATER
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016#c2


In the f2f, I commented that bug 21016 should perhaps be left OPEN instead of marked RESOLVED LATER, if the proposed split may be considered during CR rather than only in a later version of the spec. We try to use RESOLVED LATER only to mean "definitely not for this version but maybe a future one".