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 23:54:53 -0700
To: "Mark Vickers @ Comcast" <mark_vickers@cable.comcast.com>
CC: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CB103920.16C24%c.stevens@cablelabs.com>
I agree. I'll add the notes to the bugzilla entries.

On 12/15/11 11:45 PM, "Mark Vickers @ Comcast"
<Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:

>Clarke,
>
>I don't want to rush something together for seamless playback that hasn't
>had the benefit of MPTF review. I want the benefit of the expert review
>and I don't want to undercut the consensus process.
>
>At most, you could follow-up on your email to the HTML WG and state that
>seamless API was on our list at the TPAC F2F, but we don't have a
>proposal ready.
>
>I do suggest we follow-on from the thread on this topic in MPTF and
>develop a seamless proposal ASAP. We can then let the HTML WG decide what
>to do about it. Whether or not it makes this revision of HTML, it's a
>good topic for MPTF to work on.
>
>Thanks,
>mav
>
>On Dec 15, 2011, at 10:33 PM, Mark Vickers wrote:
>
>> 
>> On Dec 15, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Clarke Stevens wrote:
>> 
>>> I just sent it 2 seconds before I got this message.
>> 
>> Your email looks good.
>> 
>> You should also add bugzilla entries for the two referenced bugs with
>>links back to the appropriate MPTF proposal pages.
>> 
>>> 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
>>>>>sal
>>>> 
>>>> 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).
>> 
>> Fine.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> Seamless splicing was in R7 in our requirements presentation to the
>>HTML WG:
>> 
>>> R7. Additional Media Parameters
>>> Suggested changes:
>>> 	 Ability to signal and play media spliced seamlessly onto end of
>>>current video.
>> 
>> We did discuss it in the TPAC F2F with the HTML WG. When we were
>>looking at the general option 3 case for ABR control, seamless playback
>>was covered as a simple case. Now that we fell back to the option 1
>>simple control model for ABR, we left out seamless playback, even though
>>it doesn't depend on ABR at all.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>>>>osa
>>>>>> 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 06:55:26 UTC

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