Re: minutes of 2009-09-23 teleconference

I thought we were going to mandate the <unit> part of the range headers?

Regards,
Silvia.

2009/9/23 Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>:
> Dear all,
>
> [Apologies for my sudden drop, fire trials in the building have unexpectedly
> close power supply and disconnect us from the network, impacting internet
> connexion and phone (because of vo-ip) :-(]
>
> The full minutes are available for review at
> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html (and in text format
> below).
>
> I think the main resolution taken concern the syntax for Range and
> Content-Range headers. I have slightly updated the syntax as:
>
>  Range: <dimension> [':' <unit>] '=' <start-pos> - <end-pos>
>
>  Content-Range: <dimension> [':' <unit>] ' ' <real-start-pos> '-'
> <real-end-pos> '/' (<instance-length> / "*" )
>
> also at
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/WG_Resolutions#Media_Fragment_Headers
>
> Note that I follow the version 07 of the HTTBis draft that says that the
> instance-length could also be '*' in the Content-Range response, meaning:
>
>   The header SHOULD indicate the total length of the full entity-body,
>   unless this length is unknown or difficult to determine.  The
>   asterisk "*" character means that the instance-length is unknown at
>   the time when the response was generated.
>
> Feel free to shout if you have any objections.
>
> I also understand from the minutes that we still need to discuss how will
> handle media fragments for the 'track' and 'name' dimensions, and in
> particular which headers should we use. I understand also that it is less of
> priority as we should first get quickly the draft out for the two other
> numerical dimensions. I will write this topic in the forthcoming agendas of
> our telecon.
> Cheers.
>
>  Erik & Raphaël
>
> ------
>   [1]W3C
>      [1] http://www.w3.org/
>                               - DRAFT -
>             Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference
> 23 Sep 2009
>   [2]Agenda
>      [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0129.html
>   See also: [3]IRC log
>      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-irc
> Attendees
>   Present
>          Conrad, Jack, Michael, Silvia, Raphael, Thierry, Yves, Erik
>   Regrets
>   Chair
>          Erik, Raphael
>   Scribe
>          jackjansen
> Contents
>
>     * [4]Topics
>         1. [5]1 admin
>         2. [6]2 UC & requirements
>         3. [7]3 specification
>         4. [8]4, test cases
>         5. [9]5 issues
>     * [10]Summary of Action Items
>     _________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>   <trackbot> Date: 23 September 2009
>
>   <raphael> Scribe: jackjansen
>
>   <raphael> Scrinenick: jackjansen
>
>   <raphael> scribenick: jackjansen
>
> 1 admin
>
>   <raphael> Minutes telecon:
>   [11]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html
>
>     [11] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-mediafrag-minutes.html
>
>   <raphael> Minutes F2F:
>   [12]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-minutes.html and
>   [13]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/18-mediafrag-minutes.html
>
>     [12] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/17-mediafrag-minutes.html
>     [13] http://www.w3.org/2009/09/18-mediafrag-minutes.html
>
>   <mhausenblas> +1
>
>   <raphael> +1
>
>   Raphael: minutes approved
>
>   <silvia> +1
>
>   Thierry: action-111 is ongoing
>
> 2 UC & requirements
>
>   Raphael: 105 and 106 are ongoing, will try to do this afternoon
>
>   <raphael> ACTION-95?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-95 -- Michael Hausenblas to review ALL UC with a
>   mobile hat on and check whether these sufficiently cover the mobile
>   usage -- due 2009-09-02 -- OPEN
>
>   <trackbot>
>   [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/95
>
>     [14] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/95
>
>   Michael: on 95 there seem to be no issues with mobile
>
>   RESOLUTION: 95, no special issues for mobile
>
>   <raphael> Side Conditions are in 2 documents:
>   [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-req
>   s/#side-conditions
>
>     [15]
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-reqs/#side-conditions
>
>   <raphael> which document should it be?
>
>   <raphael> close ACTION-95
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-95 Review ALL UC with a mobile hat on and check
>   whether these sufficiently cover the mobile usage closed
>
>   <raphael> Jack: I agree it should be in one document, no preference
>
>   Raphael: tends to think its requirement doc
>
>   <mhausenblas> +1
>
>   <scribe> ACTION: Raphael to move section to requirements doc only
>   [recorded in
>   [16]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
>
>   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Raphael
>
>   <raphael> Silvia: about your suggestion of removing the side
>   conditions section in one of the two document
>
>   <scribe> ACTION: troncy to move section to requirements doc only
>   [recorded in
>   [17]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
>
>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-113 - Move section to requirements doc
>   only [on Raphaël Troncy - due 2009-09-30].
>
>   <raphael> ... we will remove it from the spec and keep it in the
>   requirements doc
>
>   <silvia> +1
>
> 3 specification
>
>   <raphael> ACTION-109?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-109 -- Erik Mannens to and Davy to write a
>   paragraph in the documents to explain why we don't include this
>   feature in the spec (rationale) based on the group analysis (impact
>   both req and spec documents) -- due 2009-09-24 -- OPEN
>
>   <trackbot>
>   [18]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/109
>
>     [18] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/109
>
>   <raphael> Yes, Silvia, this is Erik action we are talking about
>
>   Erik: 109 will be done this week
>
>   <raphael> ACTION-110?
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-110 -- Silvia Pfeiffer to silvia to Draft a
>   summary starting from her blog post and the 17/09/2009 IRC minutes
>   in the document (role of ? and #) -- due 2009-09-24 -- OPEN
>
>   <trackbot>
>   [19]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/110
>
>     [19] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/110
>
>   <silvia> 110 will be done this week
>
>   <raphael> ... what's the status of this action?
>
>   <silvia> not done yet
>
>   Silvia: 110 also this week
>
>   Raphael: let's talk about range syntax
>
>   <raphael>
>   [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Se
>   p/0133.html
>
>     [20]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0133.html
>
>   <silvia> I just a few minutes ago sent an update on that discussion
>
>   <silvia>
>   [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Se
>   p/0135.html
>
>     [21]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2009Sep/0135.html
>
>   <silvia> does anyone have the specification that Yves pointed out
>   will update the RFC to satisfy the need for other range types?
>
>   <conrad> if we are going to make a spec for time range units, i
>   agree with silvia's proposal that both Range request header and
>   Content-Range response header should use "time:npt" etc.
>
>   <conrad> if we start re-using parsers then we need to have the same
>   syntax constraints in both
>
>   <conrad> eg. commas have a special meaning in headers
>
>   Jack: prefres to stay close to existing http syntax
>
>   <silvia> we are not making any differences to existing http syntax
>
>   Conrad: also syntax in different http headers
>
>   Jack: agrees
>
>   <silvia> the RFC has been reviewed:
>   [22]http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/85
>
>     [22] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/85
>
>   <silvia> one change was "make name of header value production for
>   "Range" consistent with other headers"
>
>   Raphael: proposed resolution: adopt proposal from Silvia, with both
>   range and content-range
>   ... using dimension:unit
>
>   <raphael> Range: <dimension>[':' <unit>] '=' <start time> - <end
>   time>
>
>   conrad: units not optional
>
>   <Yves> +1 to no optional unit
>
>   +1
>
>   <raphael> Range: <dimension> ':' <unit> '=' <start time> - <end
>   time>
>
>   <raphael> same for Content-Range
>
>   <silvia> why no optional unit?
>
>   <conrad> if any of the time are allowed to have frame offsets, the
>   unit must be there
>
>   Raphael: revised proposal: units not optional, same for
>   content-range
>
>   <raphael> +1 for this proposal
>
>   <raphael> silvia, if the offset is at the frame precision, then unit
>   is mandatory
>
>   <Yves> silvia, because machines are not humans
>
>   beep beep
>
>   <raphael> Silvia, no objection ?
>
>   <silvia> no, I am not too worried about optional/non-optional unit
>   in Range
>
>   <silvia> +1
>
>   <silvia> just curious about reasoning :)
>
>   <mhausenblas> +1
>
>   RESOLUTION: range and unit are non-optional in content-range and
>   range headers
>
>   <silvia> btw: the draft RFC update is here
>   [23]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-07#page-8
>
>     [23] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-07#page-8
>
>   Raphael: next, should we use range for addressing tracks?
>
>   <raphael>
>   [24]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Server-parsed_Fra
>   gments
>
>     [24]
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/Server-parsed_Fragments
>
>   <conrad> silvia: what is your response about use of range for track?
>
>   Raphael: Conrad wants new header, Silvia wants to reuse range
>
>   Yves: range header is mainly numeric
>
>   <silvia> I wonder why we need a different header for that - let me
>   read up on the email thread
>
>   Yves: we will wait for raphael to return
>
>   <silvia> so, Yves, do you agree about creating a new "Fragment:"
>   header for tracks?
>
>   <conrad> you can't take an interval of track names, or describe the
>   instance-length for Content-Range
>
>   We will continue.
>
>   <silvia> you could if the tracks were ordered
>
>   <silvia> then the "instance-length" could be the number of tracks
>
>   Yves: if we have it in range, would we need resolver to map track
>   names to byte ranges?
>
>   <silvia> we need such a resolver for time, too
>
>   <conrad> silvia: how do you request "t=20/20&track=audio" as a Range
>   header, and how do you make the Content-Range response?
>
>   Yves: anyone has any response to my question?
>
>   <silvia> multiple Range headers
>
>   Jack: no opinion
>
>   <silvia> multiple Content-Range response headers
>
>   <Yves> multiple content ranges are allowed
>
>   Yves: there is a similarity to what we said about aspect ratio
>
>   <Yves> is track as a #fragment really required?
>
>   <silvia> can you explain the similarity that you see?
>
>   <Yves> when a URI can be contructed with the relevantstarting/ending
>   time
>
>   Should we table this until next week, silvia?
>
>   <Yves> having named tracks instead of numeric value adds unnecessary
>   complexity that requires a resolver, or a way to enumerate all the
>   tracks in order
>
>   <silvia> I do believe the track and also the id issues aren't fully
>   understood yet
>
>   <silvia> I also believe that it is good to focus on solving the
>   "time" specification and protocol procedure now, but the others can
>   wait a bit
>
>   <conrad> Yves, that relates to ISSUE-4
>
>   <silvia> we could indeed keep discussing this on the mailing list
>   until we have the spec for "time" finalised
>
>   Yves: table, discuss on mail or next week.
>
> 4, test cases
>
>   <mhausenblas>
>   [25]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCases
>
>     [25] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/TestCases
>
>   Michael: on action 93, it doesn't seem to affect anything
>
>   RESOLUTION: action-93, no test cases were affected
>
>   <mhausenblas> close ACTION-93
>
>   <trackbot> ACTION-93 Revisit the TC and see which are effected by
>   the temporal-optional-comma-decision closed
>
>   Michael: remove test case 4, as aspect ratio is gone
>
>   <Yves> +1
>
>   ACTION on Michael to remove it
>
>   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
>
>   ACTION Michael to remove test case 4
>
>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-114 - Remove test case 4 [on Michael
>   Hausenblas - due 2009-09-30].
>
>   <mhausenblas> state semantics
>   [26]http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/mftc
>
>     [26] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/TC/mftc
>
>   Michael: on to action 108
>
>   <mhausenblas> Michael: empty means that it is defined but yields
>   empty representation
>
>   Michael: looking at naming of test cases, empty versus undefined
>   ... is inconsistent, will clean it up
>   ... empty means - defined, but yields empty representation
>
>   <mhausenblas> two main categories: defined or undefined
>
>   Michael: undefined means - no range given
>
>   <mhausenblas> empty is defined, but yields empty representation
>
>   ACTION Michael to come up with categorization of test cases wrt
>   empty, undefined, etc
>
>   <trackbot> Created ACTION-115 - Come up with categorization of test
>   cases wrt empty, undefined, etc [on Michael Hausenblas - due
>   2009-09-30].
>
> 5 issues
>
>   Jack: no idea on issue 6
>
>   Yves: table it until Raphael is back
>
>   Tves: let's adjourn the meeting
>
>   ok, thanks!
>
>   Too many different syntaxes with rrsagent and zakim:-)
>
>   <Yves> yeah we should unify those ;)
>
>   <Yves> trackbot, end telcon
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>   [NEW] ACTION: Raphael to move section to requirements doc only
>   [recorded in
>   [27]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01]
>   [NEW] ACTION: troncy to move section to requirements doc only
>   [recorded in
>   [28]http://www.w3.org/2009/09/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02]
>
>   [End of minutes]
>
> --
> Raphaël Troncy
> EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
> 2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
> e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
> Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 11:47:23 UTC