W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > February 2013

RE: {minutes} HTML WG media telecon 2013-02-19 - EME bugs discussion

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:07:20 +0000
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
CC: "David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> (ddorwin@google.com)" <ddorwin@google.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Message-ID: <7452a8e93ba94e5fbbb4286bab51de41@BY2PR03MB608.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Minutes -> http://www.w3.org/2013/02/19-html-media-minutes.html



                               - DRAFT -

                  HTML Media Task Force Teleconference

19 Feb 2013

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Feb/0082.html


   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2013/02/19-html-media-irc


Attendees

   Present
          +1.408.536.aaaa, Mark_Watson, adrianba, joesteele,
          paulc, +1.425.202.aabb, ddorwin, BobLund, johnsim_,
          Mark_Vickers, +1.417.671.aadd

   Regrets
   Chair
          Paul Cotton

   Scribe
          Adrian Bateman

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Roll call, introductions and selection of scribe
         2. [6]Previous meeting minutes
         3. [7]Review of action items
         4. [8]Baseline documents
         5. [9]Progression to First Public Working Draft
         6. [10]Chair and Scribe for next meeting
         7. [11]Adjournment
     * [12]Summary of Action Items
     __________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 19 February 2013

   <scribe> ScribeNick: adrianba

   <scribe> Scribe: Adrian Bateman

Roll call, introductions and selection of scribe

   paulc: done

Previous meeting minutes

   paulc: no comments

Review of action items

   paulc: none for this spec

Baseline documents

   adrianba: it has been updated since jan 22 - i forgot to change
   the date
   ... we added a note to the abstract pointing to one of the bugs

   paulc: might be more appropriate to put in the status of the
   document

   adrianba: i added it where i thought most appropriate - happy
   to move it

   <joesteele> +q

   paulc: any more changes should be made in the ED and then maybe
   make a new FPWD

   joesteele: how are we going to move forward?

   paulc: that's next on the agenda

Progression to First Public Working Draft

   paulc: included links in the agenda
   ... last time we said we were working with the Team on this
   ... result of this was a Team statement that the work is in
   scope for the HTML WG

   <paulc> Team statement:
   [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013F

   eb/0122.html

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html


   paulc: there have been some questions about this statement on
   the WG list

   <paulc> Chairs decision on CfC:
   [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013F

   eb/0123.html

     [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0123.html


   paulc: subsequent to this statement, which the chairs helped
   edit for clarity, the chairs issued their decision on CfC
   ... divided into two topics: those about scope and those about
   technical issues
   ... the first set were ruled out of order based on the Team
   statement
   ... the second set requested specific bugs to be reported by
   Feb 15

   <paulc> "specific bug reports to be filed against the Encrypted
   Media Extensions component in bugzilla[$1\47] by February
   15th."

   paulc: what has happened is that we have a series of bugs filed
   ... list in the agenda is indicative, not definitive list - may
   be some others
   ... expect the TF to respond to this set of bugs
   ... when we reevaluate the publication of FPWD, we will
   consider only this set of bugs and assess how handled
   ... we need to review and decide how to respond

   <Mark_Vickers> Where is the agenda with this list?

   <ddorwin> got it

   <joesteele> adrianba: 3 keys issues

   <paulc> Agenda:
   [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013F

   eb/0082.html

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Feb/0082.html


   <ddorwin> adrianba: There are 3 key issues we should try and
   address. The rest don't provide specific information or are out
   of scope.

   <ddorwin> ...The three are 20944 to encourage interop, 20965
   related to privacy (how to handle individualization such as
   individual keys for devices - and whether the spec should
   provide guidance on that), and 21016 - a proposal to separate
   Clear Key into a separate spec.

   <paulc>
   [16]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944


     [16] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944


   <paulc>
   [17]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965


     [17] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965


   <ddorwin> adrianba: The rest we have tried to address and were
   reopened without actionable information.

   <paulc>
   [18]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016


     [18] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016


   <paulc> 20944: Editors have added a note to the Editors draft

   <joesteele> +q

   <joesteele> -q

   paulc: those would be three that we'd discuss explicitly?

   <ddorwin> adrianba: For the first two, I think we can just
   point to them as open issues as we did for MSE FPWD.

   <joesteele> +q

   <paulc> Adrian: proposes to add a note for 20965 as well as for
   20944

   <ddorwin> …For separating Clear Key into a separate spec, we
   probably need to look at that.

   <glenn> +q

   joesteele: i wanted to know about bug 20960 - EME is not
   limited to video
   ... whether there would be further comments on this

   <paulc>
   [19]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20960


     [19] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20960


   paulc: in some ways this is related to one of the other bugs

   <paulc> See also the more recent bug
   [20]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21037


     [20] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21037


   paulc: this bug suggests not using DRM and use IPSEC instead
   ... i think this is partially related to what content is sent
   over the wire
   ... they are concerned about encrypting general HTML content
   across the wire

   glenn: on the ClearKey bug, it proposes two things
   ... make ClearKey a separate spec
   ... also not make it mandatory

   <paulc> Discussing bug:
   [21]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016


     [21] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016


   paulc: do you have an opinion?

   glenn: i think it should be included in the spec - don't see
   why not
   ... open on the issue of mandatory or optional
   ... think we should recommend it
   ... could lower from MUST to SHOULD

   Mark_Vickers: on 20960 - don't understand what specific thing
   they mean
   ... it is the case that some proposals include data alongside
   media - could include captions for example
   ... so yes could include data encrypted that could come out the
   other end
   ... not sure what would be needed to make that not happen
   ... this would be true of any codec

   paulc: think comment says CDM could take data and transform
   into some other form of HTML
   ... think what we need to do is to get more context

   Mark_Vickers: i agree

   <joesteele> +q

   paulc: if there is something in the spec that constrains this
   then that would handle it

   joesteele: slightly different read: didn't say anything in the
   spec that says the CDM cannot put up UI of its own
   ... so i was reading that it said it could add some additional
   UI
   ... based on data coming in - we don't explicitly prevent UI

   <glenn> +q

   <paulc> Adrian: Not trying to exclude discussion on the other
   bugs.

   adrianba: didn't mean to suggest that other bugs have no merit
   - just that they are too vague and don't include a proposal

   glenn: since we don't define a way for CDM to receive UI events
   ... but in general we don't prevent a UA from doing something
   like this

   paulc: on the other bugs - some of them we asked for more
   information and we have the example of one here with little
   information
   ... i'd like to be able to tell the co-chairs the status of
   each of these
   ... and what the proposed outcome is
   ... not sure how to do that without stepping through each one

   <BobLund> +1 to that idea

   paulc: any objections?

   <joesteele> +1

   <Mark_Vickers> +1

   <johnsim_> +1

   paulc: [22]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944

   ... noted we propose to add text to the spec pointing out that
   this is a TBD
   ... any objections to this way to move forward?

     [22] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944


   <joesteele> no objection to this being a TBD

   paulc: [23]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965

   ... proposed same disposition?
   ... add text to abstract or status saying this is outstanding
   question?

     [23] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965


   <joesteele> +q

   paulc: in other business, noted PING call - markw has
   volunteered
   ... does this bug cover the scope?

   markw: yes, volunteered - not sure if this bug is the issue

   ddorwin: got cross-posted to that group

   paulc: propose that if people think there are privacy issues
   they should file bugs

   joesteele: proposing to add some text to say that this is an
   outstanding issue
   ... don't think we can make much progress until we can make a
   definitive statement

   paulc: by progress do you mean to FPWD or after that

   joesteele: i mean both
   ... getting to CR is going to require a statement that most
   people are happy with

   paulc: we don't know yet

   joesteele: when you say this is TBD before or after FPWD?

   paulc: currently before

   "Note: It is an open issue whether and how the spec should do
   more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop. See Bug 20944."

   paulc: would expect something similar for security/privacy
   ... not sure where to put it - to me this probably belongs in
   status section
   ... okay?

   joesteele: okay

   paulc: [24]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20960

   ... this is the one brought up before
   ... what i'm hearing is that we need more information

     [24] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20960


   <joesteele> yes

   paulc: should treat this with NEEDSINFO
   ... should start dialogue on this

   joesteele: i can respond to the bug and see what Fred has to
   say

   paulc: [25]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20961

   ... currently proposed in bug to close as non-issue for EME

     [25] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20961


   <paulc>
   [26]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20961#c4


     [26] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20961#c4


   paulc: markw is proposing resolve as WONTFIX
   ... recent comment

   <joesteele> no objection

   paulc: assuming no objection to this
   ... [27]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20962

   ... depends on patented technology

     [27] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20962


   <joesteele> +q

   paulc: response is request to include CDM in spec so it falls
   under W3C terms
   ... believe related to general question of CDM interop?

   <joesteele> -q

   johnsim: i would interpret it that way

   BobLund: i don't know that i would interpret that way -
   question is that since CDM is under HTML WG then this would be
   within HTML WG IPR
   ... it's up to the browser manufacturer what they include -
   same as a codec that isn't RF

   adrianba: the bug says that not being in the WG is the problem
   since it doesn't require W3C IPR policy

   paulc: this bug is asking for more specification so that the
   IPR policy applies

   glenn: i think it goes beyond that - fully specify all CDMs
   ... not having the abstraction of a CDM

   paulc: not hearing a definitive position

   <BobLund> +1 to Adrian's position

   <paulc> Adrian: The EME spec proposes to abstract away the CDM
   and therefore there is simply disagreement here.

   adrianba: i disagree with CDMs being defined - the purpose of
   the spec is to abstract CDMs away
   ... don't think there is a compromise that works here

   paulc: what you're proposing is WONTFIX?

   <markw> +1

   adrianba: i think the spec is covered by the patent policy and
   the parts deliberately out of scope are not
   ... i think someone could make a counter proposal if they like
   but that's not our goal with this spec

   BobLund: i think the lack of a RF CDM implementation is a
   current thread of the discussion
   ... if someone wants to offer a CDM proposal that is RF then we
   could consider adding it to the spec

   <glenn> +q

   BobLund: like we did with ClearKey

   <joesteele> +q

   glenn: the open source issue is probably more important than
   the RF issue

   <joesteele> -q

   glenn: don't think we should open EME to try to solve the
   problem at this time - a follow-on spec would be fine

   <MartinSoukup> +1 to making follow on spec if someone offers it

   BobLund: not suggesting we take that on - just that if someone
   else does it we can consider

   paulc: think we have a proposed resolution on this one

   <Mark_Vickers> +1

   <joesteele> +1

   <glenn> +1

   <MartinSoukup> +1 to meeting next week

   paulc: would you be open to an EME call next week to make more
   progress on this instead of EME?

   <johnsim_> +1

   paulc: we have 45 bugs on EME and 5 on MSE
   ... would like permission of this group to have another EME
   call
   ... work with editors of MSE spec to process other MSE bugs by
   email
   ... not hearing any objections
   ... [28]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20963

   ... this bug says the spec is incomplete - this is one of the
   longer arguments

     [28] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20963


   adrianba: i don't think having one bug saying "incomplete" is
   helpful

   paulc: i would suggest making this bug dependent on the other
   three
   ... 20944, 20960, 20961
   ... if we make this dependent and say those are the best
   description we have

   <joesteele> +1 to this approach

   paulc: then when those bugs go away so does this one
   ... by default, agenda for next week will pick up on actions
   from today
   ... joe to follow-up and editors to action bugs discussed today
   ... will tell co-chairs to expect more progress next week
   ... ask people to come prepared or even propose resolutions in
   the bugs
   ... questions?
   ... out of time now
   ... don't think we got enough discussion about 21016
   ... we said this was two issues
   ... included in spec and mandatory or optional

   <glenn> which bug did you ask about?

   paulc: glenn perhaps you can respond

   <ddorwin> @glenn:
   [29]https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016


     [29] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21016


   <glenn> got it

Chair and Scribe for next meeting

   paulc: we will meet next week on the 26th
   ... could i schedule for longer?

   +1

   <joesteele> +1

   <johnsim_> +1

   scribe: i may try to schedule for 90 mins

   <Mark_Vickers> +1

   scribe: and get consensus at the beginning of the meeting
   ... and if not ask which items to deal with first

Adjournment

   paulc: adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]




From: Paul Cotton 
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 7:22 AM
To: public-html-media@w3.org
Cc: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> (ddorwin@google.com); Adrian Bateman; Mark Watson
Subject: {agenda} HTML WG media telecon 2013-02-19 - EME bugs discussion

The HTML WG media teleconference meeting will occur on 2013-02-19 for up to 60 minutes from 15:00Z to 16:00Z.

http://timeanddate.com/s/2c2e


Tokyo midnight, Amsterdam/Oslo 17:00, London/Dublin 16:00, New Jersey/York 11:00, Kansas City 10:00, Seattle/San Francisco 08:00.

Chair of the meeting: Paul Cotton
Scribe: TBD

(See the end of this email for dial-in and IRC info.)

== Agenda ==

1. Roll call, introductions and selection of scribe

2. Previous meeting minutes
http://www.w3.org/2013/02/05-html-media-minutes.html 

3. Review of action items
https://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/

None.

4. Baseline documents 

a) Encrypted Media Extensions editor's draft
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html 
Last updated on Jan 22.  

b) Candidate FPWD
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media-fpwd.html


5. Progression to First Public Working Draft

a) CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Jan/0102.html

Team's statement about scope:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html

Chair's CfC decision:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0123.html


b) Bugs filed after CfC decision

20944
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
EME should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop, and can be different per-user/device. 
Thu 00:30 
20960
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME is not limited to video. 
Tue 20:27 
20961
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME depends on privileged access to the users computer which is not technically available. 
Tue 20:02 
20962
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME depends on patented technology. 
Tue 20:10 
20963
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME is technically incomplete 
Sat 01:39 
20964
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME depends on servers with a finite life. 
Tue 20:22 
20965
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME results in a loss of control over security and privacy. 
Thu 19:51 
20966
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME design trivializes the demanded loss of control of security and privacy demanded. 
Tue 20:17 
20967
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME does not allow independent implementation, excluding open source implementations. 
Thu 19:38 
20968
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME depends on legal sanctions to succeed and this is not a matter that can be addressed here. 
Tue 20:20 
20978
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
Just an API for encouraging the use of proprietary plugins 
Tue 23:21 
20992
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
EME should define or reference a platform-independent VM in which CDMs will run 
Thu 18:31 
21016
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
Please split Clear Key into a separate optional specification 
14:38:41 

6. Discussion of outstanding bugs

a) Encrypted Media Extensions bugs: 
http://tinyurl.com/7tfambo

Status as of Feb 17: 46 bugs (see list at end of agenda)

7. Other Business

a) Discussion of EME at next PING call
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Feb/0081.html 

8. Chair and Scribe for next meeting

9. Adjournment

== Dial-in and IRC Details ==

Zakim teleconference bridge:
   +1.617.761.6200, conference 63342 ("media")
https://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#s_5366


Supplementary IRC chat (logged):
   #html-media on irc.w3.org port 6665 or port 80

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


46 bugs found. 
ID▲
Assignee
Status
Summary
Changed
16540
ddorwin@google.com 
ASSI 
Provide guidelines on Key System string format 
2012-09-05 
16541
adrianba@microsoft.com 
ASSI 
Update examples to use async XHR 
2012-08-28 
16553
ddorwin@google.com 
ASSI 
Consider not firing a needkey event when a potentially encrypted stream is encountered if the key is already known 
2012-11-01 
16616
ddorwin@google.com 
ASSI 
Support change of key during playback 
2012-11-01 
16617
adrianba@microsoft.com 
ASSI 
Consider more granular error reporting 
2012-08-28 
16737
adrianba@microsoft.com 
ASSI 
Should MEDIA_KEYERR_CLIENT be two separate errors? 
2012-09-04 
16738
ddorwin@google.com 
ASSI 
Provide more guidance on heartbeat implementation 
2012-12-11 
16857
adrianba@microsoft.com 
ASSI 
MEDIA_ERR_ENCRYPTED should exclude decrypt failure 
2012-09-04 
17199
watsonm@netflix.com 
ASSI 
Provide examples for and get feedback on Key Release 
Fri 16:41 
17203
adrianba@microsoft.com 
ASSI 
Should session ID be required? 
2012-12-11 
17660
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
need token relative with user identity for a new generateKeyRequest parameter 
2012-10-31 
17673
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
Define Initialization Data for implementations that choose to support the ISO Base Media File Format 
2013-01-27 
17750
ddorwin@google.com 
ASSI 
Define the behavior MediaKeySession close() and clearing the keys attribute 
2012-10-31 
18515
ddorwin@google.com 
ASSI 
Provide more details on behavior of the media element when the key for an encrypted block is not available 
2012-09-04 
18928
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
MediaKeySession IDL should list EventHandler attributes for onkeyadded, onkeymessage, and onkeyerror 
2012-12-04 
19009
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
A MediaKeys should belong to a single HTMLMediaElement. 
Mon 22:52 
19096
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
Add 'type' attribute to MediaKeyNeededEvent 
2012-12-04 
19156
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
Switching decoders when the key system is specified 
2012-12-11 
19208
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
Keymessage event not needed when Key System already has Key 
Tue 13:44 
19788
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
What, if any, event should be fired when no key is available to decrypt the block? 
2012-11-01 
19805
ddorwin@google.com 
ASSI 
Restriction to only use initData in createSession is too restrictive 
2012-11-01 
19809
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
Specify which portion of addKey() algorithm to run when updating license for a key 
2012-11-01 
19810
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
Should key IDs be required in content and addKey()'s parameter? 
2012-12-11 
20335
adrianba@microsoft.com 
ASSI 
Replace canPlayType() with static bool isTypeSupported() on MediaKeys 
2013-01-12 
20336
ddorwin@google.com 
NEW 
Revert addition of keySystem attribute to HTMLSourceElement 
2013-01-08 
20338
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
Explicitly specify whether initData is required for Clear Key 
2012-12-11 
20552
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
Encrypted Block Encountered algorithm should not reference Initialization Data 
2013-01-02 
20622
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
SessionID may be assigned asynchronously in MediaKeys.createSession 
2013-01-09 
20688
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
Provide more details on when keyadded should be fired 
2013-01-16 
20689
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
Specify how CDM should indicate successful completion with no message for server 
2013-01-16 
20691
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
Should createSession()'s type parameter be required? 
2013-01-16 
20798
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
keySystem strings should be compared case-sensitively 
Tue 14:01 
20944
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
EME should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop, and can be different per-user/device. 
Thu 00:30 
20960
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME is not limited to video. 
Tue 20:27 
20961
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME depends on privileged access to the users computer which is not technically available. 
Tue 20:02 
20962
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME depends on patented technology. 
Tue 20:10 
20963
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME is technically incomplete 
Sat 01:39 
20964
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME depends on servers with a finite life. 
Tue 20:22 
20965
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME results in a loss of control over security and privacy. 
Thu 19:51 
20966
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME design trivializes the demanded loss of control of security and privacy demanded. 
Tue 20:17 
20967
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME does not allow independent implementation, excluding open source implementations. 
Thu 19:38 
20968
adrianba@microsoft.com 
REOP 
EME depends on legal sanctions to succeed and this is not a matter that can be addressed here. 
Tue 20:20 
20978
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
Just an API for encouraging the use of proprietary plugins 
Tue 23:21 
20991
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
MediaKeys constructor failure case refers to unknown "new object". 
Thu 05:47 
20992
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
EME should define or reference a platform-independent VM in which CDMs will run 
Thu 18:31 
21016
adrianba@microsoft.com 
NEW 
Please split Clear Key into a separate optional specification 
14:38:41 
46 bugs found.
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 17:10:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 February 2013 17:10:49 GMT