W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > July 2015

{minutes} HTML WG media telecon 2015-07-07 - EME bugs and status

From: Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:58:25 +0000
To: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Message-ID: <47AEC90A-F666-431C-AADF-536F8BF2A582@adobe.com>
http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-minutes.html <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-minutes.html>
Next EME meeting is July 21st.


Joe Steele


 <http://www.w3.org/>
HTML Media Task Force Teleconference

07 Jul 2015

Agenda <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Jul/0009.html>
See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-irc>
Attendees <>
Present
markw, joesteele, Plh, plh, BobLund, davide, adrianba, paulc, ddorwin, cwilso
Regrets
Chair
paulc
Scribe
joesteele
Contents

Topics <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-minutes.html#agenda>
Open Action Items <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-minutes.html#item01>
Implemented Issues since June 2nd <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-minutes.html#item02>
Issues to be implemented <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-minutes.html#item03>
Initialization Data cluster <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-minutes.html#item04>
Event Handler and Message cluster <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-minutes.html#item05>
Examples cluster <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-minutes.html#item06>
Issue-63: Align normative text on user consent for Distinctive Identifiers with privacy section <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-minutes.html#item07>
Issue-45: Remove "persistent-release-message" MediaKeySessionType <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-minutes.html#item08>
Issue-22: Add output-restricted MediaKeyStatus <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-minutes.html#item09>
Next meeting <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-minutes.html#item10>
Summary of Action Items <http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-html-media-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
<trackbot> Date: 07 July 2015
<paulc> Media TF is now using Webex: https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Media_Task_Force/Call <https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Media_Task_Force/Call>
<paulc> Each TF participant on the call should enter "present+" so that we have a log of participants.
<paulc> Media TF is now using Webex: https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Media_Task_Force/Call <https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Media_Task_Force/Call>
<scribe> scribenick: joesteele
<paulc> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Jul/0009.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Jul/0009.html>
Open Action Items

paulc: David you had an open action — you need an extension?
ddorwin: yes - I extended
<paulc> ACTION-86?
<trackbot> ACTION-86 -- David Dorwin to Send an update on bug 27269 -- due 2015-07-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/86 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/86>
<paulc> ACTION-93?
<trackbot> ACTION-93 -- Paul Cotton to Get in touch with webappsec wg about the "privileged context" which is more generic than saying https, etc." (really on bob lund) -- due 2015-05-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/93 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/93>
paulc: we had a response yesterday from BobLund
… about the priviledged context
<paulc> See Bob's update in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Jul/0007.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Jul/0007.html>
Implemented Issues since June 2nd

paulc: there was an update since the agenda
<paulc> Issues 12, 15, 30, 34, 36, 39, 43, 44, 49, 51, 56 and 58 have been implemented
… believe issue 20 and 8 have been updated
<paulc> Issue 20 and issue 8 have also been implemented
jdsmith: yes, implemented
Issues to be implemented

paulc: I created a list to be sure we knew what is blocked
… looks like 17, 10, 9, 8 and 2
<paulc> ISSUE-17 Replace "fire a simple event" with "fire an event" for non-simple Events, Assigned to Jerry
paulc: lets discuss this one
<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/17 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/17>
… Jerry had a question
<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/17#issuecomment-119042652 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/17#issuecomment-119042652>
jdsmith: I want to be sure I know what a “complex” event is
… I interepreted to be ones with attributes, not sure how that is different from simple events
… this looks effectively the same
ddorwin: I interpreted this as just being the base interface and not appropo for other events
… would like input from others on whether this is correct
paulc: what do you mean?
ddorwin: if fire an event means fire an “Event” then it is not correct for the other text. This would clean that up
jdsmith: probably need to clarify this more
<paulc> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/webappapis.html#fire-a-simple-event <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/webappapis.html#fire-a-simple-event>
paulc: I was looking for that text in the webappis spec
ddorwin: we should find out what a “simple event” is
jdsmith: having trouble finding the example now
paulc: does the text “simple event” occur elsewhere?
<ddorwin> The question is whether "simple event" means exactly "Event" or can include children of Event (with additional members).
paulc: “simple event” by itself is never defined
ddorwin: that refers to “Event”
… the Event interface
jdsmith: an alternate example under sourcing tracks is step 9
<paulc> Step 9 of http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#sourcing-in-band-text-tracks <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#sourcing-in-band-text-tracks>
paulc: should we handle offline?
… or discuss more now?
jdsmith: would like some guidance here — what is the right model?
paulc: what are the key questions then?
ddorwin: the one I posted above
… the term “simple event” is from webapp Apis
<plh> http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/webappapis.html#fire-a-simple-event <http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/webappapis.html#fire-a-simple-event>
paulc: maybe sending a request to public-html about this would answer it
... there are two issues with no assigned editors (10 and 2)
… markw can you take one or both
ddorwin: 2 is actually assigned to me
markw: I can take issue-10 then
Initialization Data cluster

<paulc> ISSUE-41 blocks ISSUE-52 and ISSUE-53
paulc: includes issue-41 which blocks 52/53
… been like this for awhile
paulc: you said you would file an additional bug and you did that, no progress since then
<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/41#issuecomment-97124407 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/41#issuecomment-97124407> give status after the Mar F2F meeting
<paulc> Joe: ISSUE-52 should be processable
<paulc> Daivd: I disagree
ddorwin: these need to be worked on as a whole and that has not happened yet
... we have been focusing on some issues (like secure release) but we need to prioritize
paulc: we have not met for a month, the work done has been stuff already marked as to be done (for a long time)
… we need to make progress on the hard issues
ddorwin: we have been making progress, eg. secure release which is why the others have not been getting attention
paulc: the chair requests Joe to figure out a strategy for this cluster
Event Handler and Message cluster

paulc: issues 19, 14, 31
… looks like 19 needs feedback
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/19 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/19>
paulc: can we get a volunteer to give feedback for 19 and 14 to break this cluster
jdsmith: I will do that
paulc: what is your timeline?
jdsmith: shoot for two weeks
Examples cluster

paulc: issues 34 and 10
… maybe these need to just be assigned to an editor
… is there any technical discussion?
markw: 34 is done and I took on 10
paulc: thanks
Issue-63: Align normative text on user consent for Distinctive Identifiers with privacy section

<paulc> Issue-63: Align normative text on user consent for Distinctive Identifiers with privacy section
<trackbot> Notes added to Issue-63 .
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/63 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/63>
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/66 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/66>
paulc: you created this 21 days ago — what do we do with this?
ddorwin: I need to review that one — must have missed it. I will take an action
Issue-45: Remove "persistent-release-message" MediaKeySessionType

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/45 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/45>
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/45 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/45>
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/54 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/54>
paulc: lot of discussion in this one
<paulc> EME] Netflix's secure release is unreliable without tamper-proof secure persistent storage and/or delayed shutdown
… and a separate email thread
<paulc> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Jun/0021.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Jun/0021.html>
… message 21 in the June archive
paulc: what do we do next here?
ddorwin: working on documenting the key renewal which has been blocking this
jdsmith: that was an alternative David raised in previous discussions
ddorwin: the issue is very different now than what is being discussed, this is all about secure release
joesteele: seems that the core issue is that some platforms may not be able to support this or is very difficult, and whether we should allow such features
markw: seems like that would be a good question to answer even if I disagree about whether it is implementable
… I find it unlikely that there are platforms where the write required is not possible
ddorwin: this is an architectural constraint that this feature places on the spec which is a web of other constraints
… I also think you cannot define that behavior in terms of other core specs
… I think you *can* write this in the spec, but the question is whether the web spec should constrain implementations this way
markw: I think this is a web agent arhcitecural issue, not a web architecture issue
… might be missing something and we need to dive deeper
… but I am happy to see the alternatives and see whether they solve all the uses cases, or maybe support both
paulc: more discussion now?
… or wait for davids proposal
+1
ddorwin: ok with me
Issue-22: Add output-restricted MediaKeyStatus

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/45 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/45>
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/65 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/65>
ddorwin: discussing with Mark now, was a little confused
… do you want “downscaled” as well now?
markw: could have either “op blocked” or “downscaled” states, to avoid discarding the high resolution data downloaded
dorwin: was a bit confused about the last line, will re-read now and respond
… will make the proposal more concise and we can move from there
… updating the issue
Next meeting

paulc: suggest we meet on July 21st
jdsmith: ok
… alternating between MSE and EME seems like the way to go
paulc: ok — we are done.
Summary of Action Items <>[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> version 1.140 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
$Date: 2015/07/07 15:55:34 $

Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2015 15:58:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:49:03 UTC