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

Re: [MEDIA_PIPELINE_TF] Content protection proposal

From: Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 06:45:53 +0000
Message-ID: <82D5ACEE-4101-44C9-B41B-06BB14CC1FBF@cable.comcast.com>
To: Clarke Stevens <c.stevens@cablelabs.com>
Cc: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
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_Proposal
>>> 
>>> 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_Proposa
>>>>> 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 07:04:04 UTC

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