{minutes} HTML WG media telecon 2015-10-06 - EME bug status

http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html>

NOTE — when logging into the IRC — please use “present+ name” to announce yourself.

Joe Steele


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

06 Oct 2015

Agenda <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0012.html>
See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-irc>
Attendees <>
Present
slightlyoff, paulc, joesteele, davide, adrianba, BobLund, markw, jdsmith, robink, ddorwin, cwilso
Regrets
Chair
paulc
Scribe
joesteele
Contents

Topics <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#agenda>
Discussion on ISSUE-85 with TAG members <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item01>
Media Task Force F2F meeting, TPAC, Sapporo, Japan, Oct 29-30 2015 <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item02>
ISSUE-97: Algorithm references use title case inconsistently <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item03>
New Issues <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item04>
Issue 97 <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item05>
ISSUE-96: Consider reasons other than Distinctive Identifier in the steps of the Consent Status algorithm <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item06>
ISSUE-41 and ISSUE-53 - Initialization Data issue cluster <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item07>
Outstanding pull requests <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item08>
Issue 80 and 81 <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item09>
Issue 82, Pull request 89 <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item10>
Issue 83, pull 93 <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item11>
ISSUE-84 <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item12>
To Be Implemented Issues <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item13>
Event Handler and Messgae cluster <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item14>
ACTION-93: Get in touch with webappsec wg about the "privileged context" which is more generic than saying https, etc." <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item15>
MediaKeyStatusMap cluster (ISSUE-68, ISSUE-69, ISSUE-70, ISSUE-75) <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item16>
EME status and bugs <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item17>
wrap up <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#item18>
Summary of Action Items <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-html-media-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
<trackbot> Date: 06 October 2015
<paulc> Each participant should type present+ <name> in the irc channel immediately upon joining the call
<paulc> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0012.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0012.html>
Discussion on ISSUE-85 with TAG members

<paulc> paulc: No progress on this item. We will continue to track it.
<paulc> paulc: if there is no progress by the TPAC F2F then I will request the TAG members responsible to attend the F2F.
Media Task Force F2F meeting, TPAC, Sapporo, Japan, Oct 29-30 2015

<paulc> See wiki agenda: http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2015-10-Agenda <http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2015-10-Agenda> (under construction)
<paulc> paulc: I expect an agenda outline this week based on today's EME meeting and next week's MSE meeting.
<paulc> paulc: The Chairs requests that TF member expose any time restrictions they have.
<paulc> paulc: no questions from the floor
<markw> I’ll be there
<davide> nope
<jdsmith> paulc: Joe Steele is coming as well.
<jdsmith> jdsmith: I am coming too.
<scribe> scribe: joesteele
ISSUE-97: Algorithm references use title case inconsistently

paulc: not sure whether this is just editorial
ddorwin: not self assigned yet — would like input on options
paulc: if someone could weigh in that would be good
jdsmith: I will take that — have a preference for all caps
ddorwin: that works for me
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/97 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/97>
ISSUE-96: Consider reasons other than Distinctive Identifier in the steps of the Consent Status algorithm

<paulc> paulc: Issue has a solution and David has self-assigned.
ISSUE-41 and ISSUE-53 - Initialization Data issue cluster

<paulc> See Paul's update/question: tps://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0001.html
<paulc> See Paul's update/question: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0001.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0001.html>
joesteele: I responded to that
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/41 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/41>
<paulc> Issue-41 response from Joe: https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/41#issuecomment-145740508 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/41#issuecomment-145740508>
paulc: what is the plan going forward here?
… 52 was blocking 41.
joesteele: couple of issues raised
… David mentioned an interop issue
… And in the issue the need for a use case was mentioned
… I added the use case — we should discuss the other
paulc: the point about interop issue is that implementations might change — but spec is not final yet
ddorwin: however this is a late feature and would delay last call. Would prefer to focus on the 40 other bugs first
… figuring out whether this is useful would take time away from other features
… not sure whether this is useful and or broad enough to warrant this
paulc: are you saying that about both 41 and 53?
ddorwin: yes
paulc: so you would like these resolved later? please put in the bug then
ddorwin: ok
markw: I believe issue 41 is relatively simple and will not cause really any additonal work
… 53 is bigger and would require more thought. We might still want to to it for LC but it's a different matter from #41
… but we could do 41 now
paulc: david when you respond you should explain why you think 41 would delay us
Outstanding pull requests

Issue 80 and 81

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/80 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/80>
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/81 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/81>
paulc: most of these are pull requests from Mark
<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/87 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/87> is the associated PR
… one of the editors needs to step up and review
jdsmith: I can review that
ddorwin: I can look also but lower priority
Issue 82, Pull request 89

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/82 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/82>
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/89 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/89>
paulc: David or Jerry can one of you take this?
ddorwin: that makes sense for me to take
Issue 83, pull 93

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/83 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/83>
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/93 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/93>
ISSUE-84

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/84 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/84>
paulc: Mark created some use case text, Joe commented
… Mark changed the wiki to reflect Joe’s comments
markw: I think what I put in the wiki addresses the issue so we can close
paulc: was the intent of putting the material on the wiki is that that is where it would stay?
… or should impact the spec?
markw: there was a question of where it should go originally, and we decided the wiki is fine
joesteele: I have not had a chance to review, but assuming the changes are in line with my comments I am fine with closing
paulc: it would be good for folks to review if possible
ddorwin: I will review but this will be at the bottom of the queue
jdsmith: how do we link to the wiki?
paulc: I don’t think we do, but we can point to it if someone asked us the same question
… hopefully folks will be searching for this
To Be Implemented Issues

<paulc> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0007.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0007.html>
paulc: besides David and Jerry there are 8 issues that are not assigned
<paulc> I would like to gather consensus on whether any of these issues need an explicit pull request and review or if they are all ready for direct implementation?
… Mark has suggested we use pull requests as a way of reviewing
… do any of these need a pull request for review?
<ddorwin> I was dropped
<ddorwin> dialing in
jdsmith: yes — some of them do not need a full pull request
paulc: ok — are there any specifically that you can point to?
markw: I would need to look through them to see which ones need a full pull request
paulc: action is on the editors to respond to the email or go through github and self-assign the issues
… would like some input on ETA to resolve the backlog
jdsmith: my plan is to have my list done by Friday, I might be able to review the others as well
<paulc> Jerry: 8, 17, 36, 72, 73, 77
<paulc> Not assigned: 10, 47, 60, 61, 62, 64, 71, 74
paulc: so you might be able to review these others as well? if you do please respond to the email to let the other editors take issues off the list
… first come first served
… Mark maybe you can grab some of these?
markw: I can do my assigned one this week and take on some more
paulc: this would help get the backlog down
… if they are hard maybe we do need a pull request
ddorwin: the ones left unassigned might have been unassigned for a reason — I need to double check
… we need to get these done by not necessarily by TPAC — we have decisions to make there
paulc: ok — just trying to make as much progress as possible
jdsmith: when we mark as to be implemented, we are asserting there is an agreed upon opinion.
Event Handler and Messgae cluster

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/19 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/19>
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/ <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/>14
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/31 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/31>
paulc: David removed the “needs feedback” from 19 and 14 yesterday — what are the next steps here?
<paulc> ISSUE-19, ISSUE-14 and ISSUE-31 in the batch
ddorwin: have some old notes on the tedchnical details on how messages are dispatched
… this would let us resolve 19
<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/14/ <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/14/>
… there is general agreement on the others but need to make sure the foundations are correct
… these are the more important things I need to do
scribe: the order is 19, 14, and then 31 is blocked on 19
… 14 is also blocked on 19
<paulc> David's response says: dispatching rules into a description of how that affects the intended behavior in issue #19. It doesn't make sense to implement #14 and #31 until we're using the correct primitives.
paulc: do you expect that we will be ready in two weeks to discuss?
ddorwin: maybe?
ACTION-93: Get in touch with webappsec wg about the "privileged context" which is more generic than saying https, etc."

<paulc> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0011.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0011.html>
paulc: this is pending
BobLund: the objective here is to determine what we need to go back to WebAppSec with around trusted application context
… conclusion was no, but we need to get closure with some parties we are working with
paulc: will you be at TPAC?
BobLund: no and the parties will not be there either
… they are certificate authorities
<paulc> ACTION-93 is due in one month
BobLund: thats fine
markw: this problem comes up in other contexts as well — the secure connection requirements — specifically in the 2nd screen working group
… we plan to raise this issue as TPAC
… think its something that groups should look at rather than waiting on a solution
paulc: so you are suggesting that Bob should outline the solution since there might be discussions at TPAC?
markw: yes
… a solution requires all devices to be given certificates by a CA but not clear that works as a general solution
BobLund: that is the proposal, we are struggling with how that will work, specifically with private IP addresses
markw: think it is unlikely browsers will trust certificates bound to private IP addresses
<paulc> ACTION-93: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/93 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/93>
<trackbot> Notes added to ACTION-93 Get in touch with webappsec wg about the "privileged context" which is more generic than saying https, etc." (really on bob lund).
… at least not to the same level of trust as to a bound DNS name
BobLund: I will outline and get that to you before TPAC — may try to participate on the phone as well
paulc: mark are you aware of the wiki for unconferences?
markw: yes - I will add to that
paulc: if you could add this information to that wiki that would be useful
<markw> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2015/SessionIdeas <https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2015/SessionIdeas>
markw: this is the collection of session ideas — no times or places yet
paulc: Bob thanks for attending and giving us an update
MediaKeyStatusMap cluster (ISSUE-68, ISSUE-69, ISSUE-70, ISSUE-75)

: https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/68 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/68>
: https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/69 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/69>
: https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/70 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/70>
: https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/75 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/75>
paulc: some of the issues mentioned earlier have been resolved
… 75 blocks 69 and depends on 68
… what will we do about this trio?
ddorwin: 75 we got a repsonse on — need to ping him back
… we can fix 68 independently — need a response from folks
paulc: can you ping the external expert on 75?
ddorwin: yes
paulc: can another member look at the original proposal and make some comments?
jdsmith: I can do that
paulc: if we get 75 and 68 we can figure out how to move on
EME status and bugs

paulc: building the agenda for the TPAC — lots of outstanding work items
… open to suggestions on what we should discuss and when
… since the charter has been extended we will be meeting under the auspices of our existing task force
joesteele: should we talk about issue 41 at TPAC?
paulc: I am not taking anything off the table for TPAC — Google can have a rep there
… can schedule it appropriately for them
… 9am start would be 7pm at night — telco might be difficult but we will try to have the right schedule as needed
… if we can make progress before that is strongly encouraged
ddorwin: I will at least provide the information about my concerns
wrap up

paulc: we will wrap up and meet again in two weeks
… agenda will be on the wiki, folks should add their comments
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: 2015/10/06 16:07:19 $