W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > April 2013

{minutes} HTML WG media telecon 2013-04-15 - EME bugs discussion

From: Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:11:27 -0700
To: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AA1FE547-0D1D-43B5-B5F1-9B52CD035B55@adobe.com>
http://www.w3.org/2013/04/16-html-media-minutes.html

HTML Media Task Force Teleconference

16 Apr 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
ddorwin, glenn, johnsim, markw, Bin_Hu, ReimundoGarcia, BobLund, adrianba, Aaron_Colwell, joesteele, wseltzer, acolwell
Regrets
paulc
Chair
John Simmons
Scribe
joesteele
Contents

Topics
Minutes
ACTION items
Outstanding bugs
Summary of Action Items
<trackbot> Date: 16 April 2013
<ReimundoGarcia> i am aaaa
<BobLund> zakin, aagg is me
trackbot-ng, start telcon
<trackbot> Meeting: HTML Media Task Force Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 16 April 2013
<scribe> scribe: joesteele
<ddorwin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2013Apr/0042.html
Minutes

noted (http://www.w3.org/2013/04/02-html-media-minutes.html)
ACTION items

<adrianba> ACTION-10?
<trackbot> ACTION-10 -- Adrian Bateman to discuss bug 19208 with johnsim -- due 2013-04-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/10
<ddorwin> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19208
adrianba: topic we have been discussing is the expected lifetime of the session
... we compared the levels people had for the session and the events that get fired
... in the process of writing up how we think it should work
... and how we should solve which events get fired when the key system already has a key
... receive a needkey, call createSession, key system has all the info it needs, how should it signal that to the app?
... trying to writeup that lifecycle
johnsim: including that app may require that you get a refresh of the key
... Mark you mentioned that some applications may want that
... so this is a state transition diagram. Nothing to present as yet but should have something shortly
ddorwin: new due date?
adrianba: should have something soon
<adrianba> ACTION-10 due 15 apr
<trackbot> Set ACTION-10 Discuss bug 19208 with johnsim due date to 15 apr.
<adrianba> action-10 due 22 apr
<trackbot> Set ACTION-10 Discuss bug 19208 with johnsim due date to 22 apr.
<adrianba> ACTION-11?
<trackbot> ACTION-11 -- Mark Watson to write a proposal for the case where the data is not available to the JS -- due 2013-04-02 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/11
johnsim: I see a second action for Mark as well
... move on to next agenda item?
markw: haven't done it -- not sure what it refers to
... will go back to the thread an try to determine what it means
<adrianba> i think the action makes sense in the context of the minutes
Outstanding bugs

ddorwin: we left error related ones last week, but do we want to discuss the F2F first?
johnsim: do we have a mtg room? how many hours? has that been discussed?
... that will determine what we can accomplish
<acolwell> yes
johnsim: are all editors attending
ddorwin: yes
johnsim: want to get to FPWD, if we have triaged down to the bugs that must be addressed for FPWD
... we should handle those ASAP
adrianba: think we addressed all of those bugs
... we were gated on the chairs to resolve. don't think we are waiting on those
johnsim: 19208 is something that we should address - how we clarify session in the spec
... should be on the agenda
adrianba: paul was investigating whether we have a breakout space
... we have asked for 2x 90 minutes slots the afternoon of the first day
... this would be in the full meeting
johnsim: is that the right place to get into the nitty gritty?
adrianba: that is what we did in November
?1: paul said we are very tight on space
ddorwin: might want to go after some not spec-specific stuff like origin that we might get some in-the-room expertise on
... there are several like that
<ddorwin> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21155
<ddorwin> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21203
<ddorwin> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21569
<ddorwin> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20798
johnsim: it seems valuable to go into the mtg with someone owning each bug
... do you agree David?
ddorwin: definitely should have owner and know what we want to get out of each session
johnsim: definitely want to have an idea of the outcome we want. Should we discuss each of them now?
ddorwin: think we discussed each but don't remember the outcome
... I have been digging through the minutes to update each bug with our discussion -- not enough information yet
johnsim: so we should update the bugs with the remaining information from the minutes?
ddorwin: yes
johnsim: do we have concensus that these are what we should discuss?
<ddorwin> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21586
<adrianba> we have one session for EME and one for MSE
joesteele: should we be prepared to discuss the not-technical issues brought up?
adrianba: yes - some async discussion about giving the UA opportunity to put up permission UI, we might want to cover that in more detail in the group
<ddorwin> I believe that discussion came out of https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20991
johnsim: Adrian were the slots requested for MSE and EME?
<adrianba> F2F -> http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2013-04-Agenda#Potential_Topics
adrianba: yes
<adrianba> Privacy issue -> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20965
johnsim: what order should we take these in?
<ddorwin> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html#error-codes
ddorwin: revisit the original list
... specific bug for MEDIA_KEYERR_CLIENT
<ddorwin> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16737
<ddorwin> Should MEDIA_KEYERR_CLIENT be two separate errors?
ddorwin: should be some other errors I think, do we want to make this generic? think we need a larger discussion about the errors
johnsim: have there been implementations that show these are not sufficient
<adrianba> MEDIA_KEYERR_OUTPUT (numeric value 4)There is no available output device with the required characteristics for the content protection system.
ddorwin: not sure what different between 4 and 5
<adrianba> MEDIA_KEYERR_HARDWARECHANGE (numeric value 5)A hardware configuration change caused a content protection error.
johnsim: should clarify these if not clear
markw: your description of those two is correct
... MEDIA_KEYERR_HARDWARECHANGE is when outputs have changed
ddorwin: was a specific bug about how to use this?
johnsim: an action item that we had not worked on?
adrianba: bugs we took several months ago and things have changed since we took them
... we have been trying to avoid errors when we playback content, rather signal to the app that it will not get the protection it was asking for
... allow it to vary the content as a result. in general that is the approach we want to take, to avoid errors if possible.
... the other part was for debugging we find that the level of granularity will not be sufficient, so we will need a system code to allow apps to understand what is going on
... trying to understand what the balance is between generic errors and the system level codes
joesteele: my definition of MEDIA_KEYERR_HARDWARECHANGE was very different -- tied to device binding
johnsim: this is what can lead to a bad interop
... might be worth going over each error and discuss what each actually means and propose text
... in this case we may be surfacing the need for a new error code
... e.g. what joe and adrian were suggesting
ddorwin: for those of us with CDM implementations to go back to our teams and determine what errors are actually needed
... maybe using this list as a prompt
... related to this, adrians proposal to not have as many generic errors, it would be nice for apps to display a generic error.
ddorwin: for example - you need a new client, or you plugged in a bad output
... application may not want to have a detailed error msg for each key system
... may want a more general error
... adrian were you thinking we would still have a general error signal?
... or not have this
adrianba: had not reached a proposal yet, might be the same event or a different one
... just that we may want an event to signal that status
... think david summarized the right question - do we need more generic errors? or is that impractical and we should relay on something system specific?
joesteele: need to focus on errors that mean something to the user
markw: yes - have something that the user can take an action for
... maybe have one more error that a system specific error has occured
johnsim: couple minutes left -- what next?
... should we adjourn?
ddorwin: I will be spending lots of time on bugs, please other editors do the same and folks who care about the bugs so we are ready
<adrianba> +1
johnsim: see you all at the F2F -- next Tuesday/Wednesday
<adrianba> thanks for chairing and scribing
Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.137 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013-04-16 16:06:33 $
Joe Steele

steele@adobe.com



Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 16:12:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:48:35 UTC