Re: [Agenda] HTML Media Extensions WG Editors meeting, Tue Jul 19

All,

Regarding also presenting test results using polyfills, how could we
proceed with this logistically ?

For example, the drmtoday test case I just submitted fails on Chrome, but
only because of this bug
<https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=622956> regarding a
missing keystatuseschange message on close. I have a small polyfill file
which patches this up and then the test passes.

Should we have a way to run the tests with / without polyfills like this ?
Anyone have an idea what that mechanism should be ?

...Mark

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com> wrote:

> Jerry, et al, I have 11 pending media-source v1Editorial pull requests
> pending review currently:
> https://github.com/w3c/media-source/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+author%3Awolenetz+sort%3Acreated-asc
>
> As these build on each other, and also as some of them update the byte
> stream format registry (and bytestream format specs), please review these
> ASAP so they can land and give plh@ time to subsequently
> fix (while he's available this week)
> https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/74 without causing major merge
> conflicts/etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>> *W3C EME Test Status*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Overview:*
>>
>> Many thanks to the contributions of Greg Rutz (CableLabs) and Michael
>> Stattmann (CastLabs) for their assistance in developing a test framework
>> for browser and CDM multi-DRM interoperability.
>>
>>
>>
>> The planned approach is:
>>
>> 1.           Evaluate current test coverage: Determine the coverage of
>> the EME spec provided by the Google Clear Key tests. DONE
>>
>> 2.           Convert current tests to multi-DRM: Modify the Clear Key
>> tests so that they can be used in the CableLabs defined multi-DRM
>> environment. BEGUN
>>
>> 3.           Fill in the gaps in coverage: Extend the existing test
>> framework to cover all tests the editors and W3C consider to be required.
>> UNDER DISCUSSION
>>
>>
>>
>> *Details:*
>>
>> Coverage Analysis:
>>
>> An analysis was completed of the existing Clear Key based EME tests,
>> mapping them to the EME specification. It was determined that converting
>> the existing clear key tests gives us moderate coverage. Here is a link to
>> that analysis:
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> https://rawgit.com/jdsmith3000/encrypted-media-testcoverage/master/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Modifying Google Clear Key Tests:
>>
>> Google submitted a set of EME unit tests to W3C (
>> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/encrypted-media/Google).
>> The tests cover Clear Key, but are planned to be extended to cover
>> multi-DRM. Each test needs to be extended for each supported DRM and
>> multi-DRM signaling must be included. The updated tests should then detect
>> and test each CDM supported by the user agent.
>>
>>
>>
>> As Greg Rutz made clear in his previous posting, we plan to update
>> existing Clear Key tests to use existing multi-purpose DRM-license request
>> logic from CastLabs.  This process has begun, converting a small number of
>> selected Clear Key tests to multi-DRM.  Once that is completed, we will
>> develop a generalized approach to multi-Format and multi-DRM testing for
>> the remaining tests.  We hope to distribute additional test conversion work
>> across other resources.
>>
>>
>>
>> Filling in the Gaps in Coverage
>>
>> The test coverage report identifies EME spec methods and attributes which
>> are not covered by a test plan based on the existing Clear Key tests.
>> Identified gaps include:
>>
>>
>>
>> -            3.1.2.2 Get Supported Configuration and Consent
>>
>> -            3.1.2.3 Get Supported Capabilities for Audio/Video Type
>>
>> -            3.1.2.5 Get Consent Status
>>
>> -            3.2 MediaKeySystemConfiguration: distinctiveIdentifier of
>> type MediaKeysRequirement, defaulting to "optional"
>>
>> -            3.2 MediaKeySystemConfiguration: label of type DOMString,
>> defaulting to ""
>>
>> -            3.2 MediaKeySystemConfiguration: persistentState of type
>> MediaKeysRequirement, defaulting to "optional"
>>
>> -            3.2 MediaKeySystemConfiguration: sessionTypes of type
>> sequence
>>
>> -            5.2.2 CDM Unavailable
>>
>> -            5.3 Storage and Persistence
>>
>> -            6.1 MediaKeySession Attributes: expiration of type
>> unrestricted double, readonly
>>
>> -            6.1 MediaKeySession Attributes: onkeystatuseschange of type
>> EventHandler
>>
>> -            6.2 MediaKeySession Methods: load
>>
>> -            6.6.2 Update Key Statuses
>>
>> -            6.6.3 Update Expiration
>>
>> -            6.6.5 MediaKeySession Destroyed
>>
>> -            6.6.6 Monitor for CDM State Changes
>>
>> -            6.8 Session Storage and Persistence
>>
>> -            7.5.5 Attempt to Resume Playback If Necessary
>>
>> -            8.3 Support Multiple Keys
>>
>>
>>
>> These are a small minority (19 out of 136 requirements analyzed).  It has
>> not yet been decided which of these gaps need to be addressed in the final
>> test plan.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Francois Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
>> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 6:16 AM
>> To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>; Matt Wolenetz <
>> wolenetz@google.com>
>> Cc: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> (ddorwin@google.com) <
>> ddorwin@google.com>; Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>; Jerry Smith
>> (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com>; Philippe Le Hegaret (plh@w3.org) <
>> plh@w3.org>; public-hme-editors@w3.org; Iraj Sodagar <irajs@microsoft.com>;
>> John Simmons <johnsim@microsoft.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Agenda] HTML Media Extensions WG Editors meeting, Tue Jul 19
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> I cannot attend the call tomorrow, and will not be around in the next
>> couple of weeks. A quick update below:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15/07/2016 04:39, Paul Cotton wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for the update, Matt.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Could others provide a short written summary of what you are working on
>> and what blockers you think we have or where you need others to help?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding MSE testing, as shared on the HTML Media mailing-list, things
>> are starting to look good. See that email for a list of main missing
>> features in implementations:
>>
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2016Jul/0006.html
>>
>>
>>
>> I corrected tests that failed because they incorrectly truncated the
>> duration of buffered content, which is no longer allowed. This turned a
>> number of cells green. I also imported and converted tests from the
>> Chromium test suite.
>>
>>
>>
>> New/Corrected MSE tests have not been merged in the Web Platform Tests
>> repository yet. They should first be reviewed by someone else (I see Matt
>> is planning to do so) to ensure I got things right. List at:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3Amedia-source
>>
>>
>>
>> Some edge cases of SourceBuffer algorithms are probably not thoroughly
>> tested. That said, the test suite covers main visible effects of these
>> algorithms, which I hope is good enough.
>>
>>
>>
>> In short:
>>
>> 1. Outstanding PR on test repo should be reviewed, fixed as needed, and
>> merged.
>>
>> 2. I think the test suite can be viewed as "good enough" after that,
>> although it can certainly be improved.
>>
>> 3. Some features are not yet implemented across browsers. The
>> implementation report should be updated once that is done. I'd be happy to
>> do that once I am back to work.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Francois.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>>
>> >
>>
>> > *From: *Matt Wolenetz <mailto:wolenetz@google.com <wolenetz@google.com>
>> >
>>
>> > *Sent: *July 14, 2016 14:58
>>
>> > *To: *Paul Cotton <mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com
>> <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>>
>>
>> > *Cc: *David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> (ddorwin@google.com) <
>> mailto:ddorwin@google.com <ddorwin@google.com>>; Mark Watson <
>> mailto:watsonm@netflix.com <watsonm@netflix.com>>; Jerry Smith (WPT) <
>> mailto:jdsmith@microsoft.com <jdsmith@microsoft.com>>; Philippe Le
>> Hegaret (plh@w3.org) <mailto:plh@w3.org <plh@w3.org>>; Francois Daoust <
>> mailto:fd@w3.org <fd@w3.org>>; public-hme-editors@w3.org <
>> mailto:public-hme-editors@w3.org <public-hme-editors@w3.org>>; Iraj
>> Sodagar <mailto:irajs@microsoft.com <irajs@microsoft.com>>; John Simmons
>> <mailto:johnsim@microsoft.com <johnsim@microsoft.com>>
>>
>> > *Subject: *Re: [Agenda] HTML Media Extensions WG Editors meeting, Tue
>> Jul 19
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Acknowledged. I'll attend.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Regarding: https://github.com/w3c/media-source/milestones/V1Editorial,
>> I currently have 9 pull requests out for review at
>> https://github.com/w3c/media-source/pulls/wolenetz and am working on
>> more of those.
>>
>> > I'm also planning to review outstanding w-p-t PRs and upstreaming more
>> tests from Chromium prior to the meeting, in parallel with closing down
>> more Chromium MSE spec compatibility issues discovered during testing.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Thanks,
>>
>> > Matt
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com
>> <mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     I am scheduling another meeting of the Media Extensions WG MSE and
>> EME Editors for Tuesday Jul 19 at 8am PDT during the normal WG/TF meeting
>> slot.  Meeting location information is given below.____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __ __
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     Please let me know if there are any others I should invite to this
>> meeting.____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __ __
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __1.__MSE and EME timeline discussion, Paul and Philippe
>>
>> >
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2016May/0029.html
>> ____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     Status:  The timeline indicates we are planning to do the CfC for
>> MSE and EME Proposed Recommendations on Aug 2. ____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __2.__MSE test suite and testing report status, Francois Daoust
>>
>> >
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2016Jul/0006.html
>>
>> >     http://w3c.github.io/test-results/media-source/complete-fails.html
>> ____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __3.__EME test suite
>>
>> >
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2016Jul/0004.html
>> ____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __4.__Schedule for completion of editorial MSE and EME issues
>>
>> >     https://github.com/w3c/media-source/milestones/V1Editorial ____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/milestones/V1Editorial ____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __5.__MSE Registry publication as WG notes, Philippe____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/74 ____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __6.__Any other business____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __ __
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     /paulc____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __ __
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     Paul Cotton, Microsoft Ca - nada____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     Tel: (425) 705-9596 <tel:%28425%29%20705-9596
>> <%28425%29%20705-9596>> Fax: (425) 936-7329 <tel:%28425%29%20936-7329
>> <%28425%29%20936-7329>>____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __ __
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     Meeting information:____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     http://irc.w3.org #html-media____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __ __
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     Join WebEx meeting____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     Meeting number:           649 602 452 Meeting password:
>> media ____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     ____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >       Join by phone ____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     +1-617-324-0000 <tel:%2B1-617-324-0000 <%2B1-617-324-0000>> US
>> Toll Number____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     Access code: 649 602 452 ____
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __ __
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __ __
>>
>> >
>>
>> >     __ __
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2016 02:22:32 UTC