W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > May 2015

Re: {minutes} HTML WG Media TF telecon 2015-05-05 - EME status

From: Matthew Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 18:52:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CAADho6NgJ67SFHeTzVexZiQ0ijv6+C3PTCMb86q_SVz1oFVKkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com>, "<public-html-media@w3.org>" <public-html-media@w3.org>
My apologies for my bad microphone this morning. Regarding "... Cyril's
message does not tell me how to run -- <garbled>", I believe this portion
of the call was a quick clarification by me that the agenda had a broken
link; the correct link to Cyril's message is
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2014Dec/0012.html

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:13 AM Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com> wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html
>
> Joe Steele
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [image: W3C] <http://www.w3.org/>
> HTML Media Task Force Teleconference05 May 2015
>
> Agenda
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015May/0004.html>
>
> See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-irc>
> Attendees
> Presentmarkw, MattWolenetz, ddorwin, +1.408.536.aaaa, +1.415.832.aabb,
> joesteele, davide, paulc, geguchi, jdsmith, BobLund, +1.303.661.aacc,
> +1.425.677.aaddRegretsChairPaul CottonScribeJoe Steele
> Contents
>
>    - Topics <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#agenda>
>       1. F2F action items
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item01>
>       2. ACTION-82
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item02>
>       3. ACTION-83
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item03>
>       4. ACTION-84
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item04>
>       5. ACTION-85
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item05>
>       6. ACTION-86
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item06>
>       7. ACTION-87
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item07>
>       8. ACTION-88
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item08>
>       9. ACTION-89
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item09>
>       10. ACTION-90
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item10>
>       11. ACTION-91
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item11>
>       12. ACTION-92
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item12>
>       13. New MSE bugs
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item13>
>       14. Bug 28557
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item14>
>       15. Bug 28573
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item15>
>       16. MSE test suite status
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item16>
>       17. NEW EME issues
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item17>
>       18. ISSUE-50 - Remove recommendation for distinct keys for distinct
>       policies
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item18>
>       19. ISSUE-51 - Remove steps associated with cross-origin or
>       non-clearable identifiers, as these are not allowed
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item19>
>       20. ISSUE-52 - Remove reference to keys in Initialization Data
>       definition
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item20>
>       21. ISSUE-53 - Allow for long-lived key encryption keys (aka
>       "master" keys) to increase performance
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item21>
>       22. ISSUE-55 - Clarify that "resources" in close() method refers to
>       non-persisted data
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item22>
>       23. Next Mtg?
>       <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#item23>
>    - Summary of Action Items
>    <http://www.w3.org/2015/05/05-html-media-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> <trackbot> Date: 05 May 2015
> <scribe> scribe: Joe Steele
> <scribe> scribenick: joesteele
> <geguchi> aabb is me
> <paulc> Agenda:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015May/0004.html
> F2F action itemsACTION-82
> ACTION-82?
> <trackbot> ACTION-82 -- Paul Cotton to Figure out what's going to happen
> to media controller -- due 2015-04-22 -- OPEN
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/82
> paulc: contacted the w3c - but AC mtg is occuring in Paris, so still
> waiting for response
> <paulc> ACTION-82 is due next week
> <paulc> ACTION-82 due next week
> <trackbot> Set ACTION-82 Figure out what's going to happen to media
> controller due date to 2015-05-11.
> ACTION-83
> ACTION-83?
> <trackbot> ACTION-83 -- Daniel Davis to Point web and tv ig members to
> the use case wiki page. -- due 2015-04-22 -- OPEN
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/83
> paulc: don't know what the status is - anyone?
> ... best bet is to send Daniel Davis an email for update
> ... status unknown for now
> ACTION-84
> 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
> paulc: for Rus to update use case
> ... any status on this?
> here is his address -- Rustam_Khashimkhodjaev@cable.comcast.com
> ACTION-85
> ACTION-85?
> <trackbot> ACTION-85 -- Mark Watson to Provide additional technical
> recommendations for persistent-release-message based on implementation
> experience -- due 2015-04-23 -- OPEN
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/85
> paulc: discussion about this on the email
> <paulc> See also
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Apr/0061.html
> markw: I did a few things in response, updated the wiki page
> ... no agreement as yet
> ... also created a pull request to implement in the spec the changes I
> implemented last week
> ... the way that the mechanism works is not to require user agent to do
> any special work at shutdown
> <markw> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/54
> paulc: can you give the use case link
> ... ?
> ... does this complete the action?
> markw: think this completes it
> <markw>
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Media_Task_Force/EME_Use_Cases#Limited_Concurrent_Streams_via_Key_Release
>
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Media_Task_Force/EME_Use_Cases#Limited_Concurrent_Streams_via_Key_Renewal
> <markw> yes, that is the link we are looking for
> paulc: I am closing the action
> ... any further discussion needed today?
> markw: no comments on the pull request as yet
> ... what I would like to know is whether the changes are acceptable and if
> we can bring into the spec
> paulc: editor comments
> ddorwin: thanks for updating the wiki
> ... replied to some questions on the renewal
> ... I was considering extracting Mark's info to another wiki path (not
> removing it)
> ... did look at the pull request, but what somewhat hard to review as the
> enum values were re-ordered - not sure why
> markw: It seemed like there was a natural order
> ... when you make a pull request on github, it compares against the whole,
> unfortunately we don't have a nice HTML diff
> <markw> Spec as revised by PR is here:
> https://mwatson2.github.io/encrypted-media/
> paulc: think that answers the question about the ordering .. maybe should
> carry forward via email
> ... put on the agenda for next week
> <markw> I can revert the ordering changes if you would like ?
> paulc: let people know if you end up doing additional wiki work David
> ddorwin: ok
> markw: think it would be good to know whether the approach described
> makes senses
> ddorwin: still parsing and have some concerns, but will respond on the
> thread
> ACTION-86?
> <trackbot> ACTION-86 -- David Dorwin to Send an update on bug 27269 --
> due 2015-04-23 -- OPEN
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/86
> ACTION-86
> ddorwin: this was not high priority so have not done anything yet
> paulc: let's adjust the due date then
> <paulc> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27269
> <paulc> ACTION-86 due in one month
> <trackbot> Set ACTION-86 Send an update on bug 27269 due date to
> 2015-04-23.
> paulc: I updated it to May 30th
> ACTION-87
> ACTION-87?
> <trackbot> ACTION-87 -- Joe Steele to Carry out steps 1 thru 6 on the
> proposed solution to issue-41 -- due 2015-04-30 -- OPEN
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/87
> joesteele: think this is done
> paulc: I believe it is done
> <paulc> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Apr/0064.html
> paulc: closing with reference to that email
> ACTION-88
> ACTION-88?
> <trackbot> ACTION-88 -- Paul Cotton to Check on whether the proposed
> generic license request/response protocol is in scope of the current html
> wg charter -- due 2015-04-23 -- OPEN
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/88
> paulc: I did that
> <paulc> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015May/0003.html
> paulc: the sad news it that it is deemed to be not in scope
> ... we were very careful to have a written dialog with the team and they
> decided this is not in scope
> ... the AC mtg going on includes the HTML WG charter going forward
> ... Accessibility efforts on under direct study as well
> ... lots of thinking going on about new work going forward
> ... when team comes back from Paris, we can start working on a new charter
> for the WG
> ... I will recommend that the technical dialogue does not continue on this
> list for now
> ... I will leave this open for now
> <paulc> ACTION-88 due in two weeks
> <trackbot> Set ACTION-88 Check on whether the proposed generic license
> request/response protocol is in scope of the current html wg charter due
> date to 2015-04-23.
> markw: one of the suggestions on the list for this idea was to take the
> clearkey protocol and wrap it in security wrappers
> ... would it be in scope to work on the clearkey protocol and just add
> features to that?
> ... with the intention of folding this work back in later when/if scope is
> approved
> paulc: would you make that proposal in the email thread I mentioned?
> ... it has ACTION-88 in the title
> ... I can take offline with the team and work on it
> pac: I updated the end date for this action item
> <ddorwin> I seem to have been dropped.
> ACTION-88?
> <trackbot> ACTION-88 -- Paul Cotton to Check on whether the proposed
> generic license request/response protocol is in scope of the current html
> wg charter -- due 2015-05-20 -- OPEN
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/88
> ACTION-89
> ACTION-89?
> <trackbot> ACTION-89 -- Paul Cotton to Do a html wg cfc to move eme to
> process 2014 and to move it to be published automatically to tr space for
> each editor's draft commit -- due 2015-04-23 -- OPEN
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/89
> paulc: this was done
> <paulc> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015May/0009.html
> paulc: CFC is ongoing
> ACTION-90
> 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
> 2015-04-23 -- OPEN
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/90
> paulc: this action is dependent on action 88
> ... changing the date also
> 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
> ACTION-91
> ACTION-91?
> <trackbot> ACTION-91 -- Paul Cotton to (really rustamk) to ask cable labs
> about their current eme testing and whether they can expose it to the tf --
> due 2015-04-23 -- OPEN
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/91
> paulc: ask CableLabs about testing -- seems like in progress and have
> seen emails from Rus
> ... will push the date out a bit on this for further research
> BobLund: I will update the action item, think it is really on me
> paulc: you can put right on the list for more notice
> ... put the ACTION-90 in the subject
> 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
> paulc: this is still pending
> ... that takes us to MSE bugs
> New MSE bugs
> paulc: both filed by Matt -- don't have any discussion yet
> ... do you want to discuss today
> Bug 28557
> <paulc> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28557
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28557
> MattWolenz: related to putting in more details around the track buffers
> ... updating the frame processing algorithm
> ... determine whether it is possible to <garbled>
> <paulc> May be related to
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27242
> a/MattWolenetz:/MattWolenetz:/
> paulc: sounds like this is related to bug 27472 related to track buffer
> ranges
> MattWolenetz: related but not blocking
> ... probably just put forward a pull request with my recommendation
> Bug 28573
> <paulc> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28573
> MattWolenetz: this was not filed by me
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28573
> MattWolenetz: don't think the networks state is what the writer thinks it
> is
> paulc: so you will propose a response?
> MattWolenetz: yes
> MSE test suite status
> paulc: At the F2F Matt you said you would take a look
> <paulc> See F2F discussion:
> http://www.w3.org/2015/04/16-html-media-minutes.html#item01
> MattWolenetz: I have been prodded, have it on my plate
> ... Cyril's message does not tell me how to run -- <garbled>
> paulc: think we talked about a mtg, saw an email from you, will leave in
> your hands
> NEW EME issues
> paulc: 5 new issues
> ISSUE-50 - Remove recommendation for distinct keys for distinct policies
> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/50
> ddorwin: Pull requests use up numbers BTW
> markw: I saw this recommendation, I don't recall ever agreeing to this
> recommendation
> ... it is certainly one approach but some constraints make this impractical
> ... some devices in the field do not support multiple keys
> ... we need to be able to reuse existing streams
> ... so I think we should remove this recommendation
> ddorwin: updating the bug now
> ... this is related to issue 22 -- it is a non-normative note
> <paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/22
> ddorwin: you are not forced to follow, but it will provide the best
> interop
> ... I will post an update in the spec
> joesteele: I would recommend we do not include author recommendations in
> the spec
> ... maybe move into a separate document
> ... non-normative text would clutter up the spec
> markw: I was just noticing this text. There is a note in issue 22 about
> this being committed, during the discussion. This seems controversial.
> ... also agree with Joe that it might be better to have this advice
> elsewhere
> paulc: David has given folks a ptr and patially answered Marks question,
> He said he will update the issue.
> ddorwin: Just to be clear, this note does not disallow what Mark wants,
> it just points out that this will impact interop
> markw: what you just said is different than the note, with evidence I
> would not object to providing that type of recommendation
> ... havign different keys definitely has a security advantage and
> explaining that would be good
> ISSUE-51 - Remove steps associated with cross-origin or non-clearable
> identifiers, as these are not allowed
> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/51
> markw: another thing I noticed where some steps were included prior to us
> not allowing these things.
> ... now probably not needed since you would be clearly non-compliant
> paulc: commnets?
> ddorwin: as long as we specify that it is not allowed and that we know
> there will be bad behaviors, I agree this is wierd
> ... I think we could reformat the whole thing
> ... I think there will be EME implementors who violate the first condition
> markw: but now the spec is contradictory, one piece says it is allowd but
> another piece might indicate it is allowed
> ddorwin: I don't care strongly about this, just explaining why it is
> where it is
> paulc: sounds like no disagreement that a change is needed
> ... we can leave this with the editors
> ISSUE-52 - Remove reference to keys in Initialization Data definition
> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/52
> <paulc> Related to ACTION-87: Carry out steps 1 thru 6 on the proposed
> solution to issue-41 [on Joe Steele - due 2015-04-23].
> <paulc> ACTION-87?
> <trackbot> ACTION-87 -- Joe Steele to Carry out steps 1 thru 6 on the
> proposed solution to issue-41 -- due 2015-04-30 -- CLOSED
> <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/87
> joesteele: this text should be very clear, suggesting to remove one
> clause in the sentence
> paulc: since we had concensus at the F2F we should not have much time on
> this
> ddorwin: I think this is blocked on the next bug
> joesteele: I thought the blocked was the other way
> ddorwin: the reason the keys was there is that there is no support in the
> spec for process keys
> ... we are missing the text for how do we process keys
> <paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/41
> joesteele: this is the older bug
> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/41
> ... I don't have rights to add labels to the issues
> paulc: think the understanding is that issue 41 has evolved, and as David
> said 41 and 52 must be resolved together
> markw: W3C sent invitations which should give you extra rights on github
> paulc: think that was just editors
> ... but I will not let that stand in the way of progress
> ISSUE-53 - Allow for long-lived key encryption keys (aka "master" keys) to
> increase performance
> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/53
> <paulc> spun out from https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/41 and
> blocks https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/52
> joesteele: this is the use case I think is useful to include in the spec.
> It was spun out from Issue 41. It does not have fully specified text as yet
> -- just requirements
> ddorwin: have not had a chance to look yet
> jdsmith: it look like you are proposing master keys are persistent
> regardless of whether the session is persistent or not
> ... David has argued in terms of the clarity
> joesteele: Ideally these keys would be invisible to the application.
> Making them fit the persistent session model would be good because it would
> allow the app to remove the keys, but would require some mechanism for
> exposing the keys to the app
> ... that does not seem necessary
> ISSUE-55 - Clarify that "resources" in close() method refers to
> non-persisted data
> <paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/55
> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/55
> paulc: sounds like agreement from folks here
> ... do editors know what they need to do?
> <markw_> yes
> jdsmith: think that it is clear
> Next Mtg?
> paulc: next week? two weeks?
> ddorwin: can't make next week
> paulc: will meet in 2 weeks then
> <markw_> I may not be a able to make it in two weeks time
> paulc: Matt can you make next week for MSE?
> MattWolenetz: yes
> paulc: EME is 2 weeks then
> rrsagent: draft minutes
> markw: might not make next mtg then
> paulc: thanks for scribing!
> ... bye all
> Summary of Action Items[End of minutes]
> ------------------------------
> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> version
> 1.140 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
> $Date: 2015/05/05 16:08:15 $
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2015 18:52:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 5 May 2015 18:52:31 UTC