W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > December 2011

Re: [MEDIA_PIPELINE_TF] Content protection proposal

From: Clarke Stevens <C.Stevens@CableLabs.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:53:31 -0700
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
CC: "Mark Vickers @ Comcast" <mark_vickers@cable.comcast.com>, "public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CB1038B4.16C20%c.stevens@cablelabs.com>
On that point, I followed Dave's suggestion to propose running average
over 1 minute.

-Clarke

On 12/15/11 11:47 PM, "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

>bits/second or bytes/second doesn't matter. The issue is that unless you
>specify a time period (or more generally an averaging algorithm) the
>measure is meaningless. I'm aware that there are existing APIs where no
>time period is specified, but this just means it is
>implementation-specific. That might be ok when there is only one
>implementation, because people learn by experimentation what that one
>implementation does. For example there is only one implementation of
>Flash and only one of Silverlight. But if you want to write something
>meaningful that could support multiple interoperable implementations, you
>need to be more specific.
>
>...Mark
>
>On Dec 15, 2011, at 10:20 PM, Clarke Stevens wrote:
>
>> I made changes to "bits/second," but now I'm not sure I should have. We
>> talk about "bit rate" and most everything I've seen in other contexts
>>uses
>> bits/second, but it appears that the Flash APIs use bytes/second.
>> 
>> Is there a common convention here? If not, I recommend bits/second since
>> that is how the data rate is typically specified in the digital
>>television
>> and data access universes.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Clarke
>> 
>> On 12/15/11 11:10 PM, "Clarke Stevens" <C.Stevens@CableLabs.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I just sent it 2 seconds before I got this message. However, I'll
>>>comment
>>> on your recommendations below.
>>> 
>>> -Clarke
>>> 
>>> On 12/15/11 10:47 PM, "Mark Vickers @ Comcast"
>>> <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Minor edits:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/HTML_Error_codes
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/ADR_Minimal_Control_Model_Propo
>>>>>sa
>>>>> l
>>>> 
>>>> Minimal Control Model needs explanation. Perhaps copy explanation of
>>>>the
>>>> three models into this doc or link back to other doc.
>>> 
>>> I did include a link back to the architectural models (although it is
>>> towards the end of the message).
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Shouldn't bytes/second should be bits/second. Was this discussed? The
>>>>SVG
>>>> API and other IETF APIs are bits/second.
>>> 
>>> Since the message includes on links to the wiki, I can check and make
>>>the
>>> change (if necessary) on this. I agree that it should be bits per
>>>second.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Netflix_Content_Protection
>>>> 
>>>> May need to be some mention that there hasn't been time for full
>>>>review
>>>> by or consensus of MPTF yet.
>>> 
>>> We must be on the same wavelength. That's exactly what I did.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Where do we reference the seamless playback use case and API?
>>> 
>>> It's not referenced in the current response since we don't really have
>>> anything to link to yet. I still have an hour if we want to try to put
>>> something together. Would we link it to the same two bugs as the other
>>> proposals (parameters and feedback)? I'm not sure that was specifically
>>> requested from any particular bugs like the other proposals were.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> mav
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 15, 2011, at 9:12 PM, Clarke Stevens wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I'm starting my final edits now and will send in the proposals
>>>>>shortly.
>>>>> Last call for changes or comments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Clarke
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 12/15/11 9:19 PM, "Mays, David" <David_Mays@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm ok with the changes. Did you submit yet?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: Clarke Stevens [C.Stevens@CableLabs.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:08 PM
>>>>>> To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [MEDIA_PIPELINE_TF] Content protection proposal
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Although we have not really had a chance to review it as a group, I
>>>>>>am
>>>>>> considering providing Mark Watson's content protection proposal as
>>>>>> feedback to the HTML WG in addition to the HTML Errors and ABR
>>>>>>Minimal
>>>>>> Control proposals.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My motivation is that same as that for the ABR Minimal Control
>>>>>> proposal.
>>>>>> It is a useful and well-considered proposal that may require some
>>>>>> modification, but it provides a basis for discussion and a path for
>>>>>> inclusion in HTML5.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In other words, our feedback on LC Bugs 13625 and 12399 that is due
>>>>>> today
>>>>>> would include HTML Errors, ABR Minimal Control and Netflix Content
>>>>>> Protection:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/HTML_Error_codes
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/ADR_Minimal_Control_Model_Prop
>>>>>>os
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> l
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Netflix_Content_Protection
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I plan to send this feedback to HTML WG this evening after people
>>>>>>have
>>>>>> had a chance to comment, edit, etc.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Let me know what you think.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> -Clarke
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> P.S. For your convenience, here are the links to the relevant bugs:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13625
>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12399
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 06:54:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:44:06 UTC