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

{minutes} HTML WG media telecon 2015-10-20 - EME bug status

From: Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:23:08 +0000
To: "<public-html-media@w3.org>" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D66C69E9-1ED2-4A05-967C-CF196CB06131@adobe.com>
http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html>

Joe Steele

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

20 Oct 2015

Agenda <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0062.html>
See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-irc>
Attendees <>
Present
paulc, MattWolenetz, markw, ddorwin, joesteele, davide, jdsmith, plh
Regrets
Chair
paulc
Scribe
joesteele
Contents

Topics <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html#agenda>
ISSUE-85 TAG Discussion <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html#item01>
Media TF F2F <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html#item02>
updating MSE/EME issue tags and milestones <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html#item03>
Review of tags on 19 EME issues (open and NOT "needs implementation") <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html#item04>
ISSUE-98 - Decide on ideal "waitingforkey" event behavior when update() doesn't resume playback <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html#item05>
ISSUE-99 - Remove note recommending setMediaKeys() be called before providing media data <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html#item06>
ISSUE-100 - Is "running the Encrypted Block Encountered algorithm" the correct way to Attempt to Resume Playback If Necessary? <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html#item07>
ISSUE-101 - Normatively require distinctive identifiers to be different by top-level and EME-using origin <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html#item08>
ISSUE-102 - Define what to do when CDM becomes unavailable <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html#item09>
EME Initialization Data Correlation <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html#item10>
ISSUES 103 through 110 <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html#item11>
Summary of Action Items <http://www.w3.org/2015/10/20-html-media-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
<trackbot> Date: 20 October 2015
<scribe> scribenick: joesteele
ISSUE-85 TAG Discussion

<markw> The TAG issue on this as no updates (https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/73) <https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/73)>
paulc: sent a note to Travis yesterday and he said he would come today, but nothing written yet so we asked him to update their issue-73 or our issue-85 instead
<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/85 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/85>
… will put this on the F2F agenda if no progress
… not sure whether they will be in Sapporo
… but something written would be preferable
+1 from the crowd
ddorwin: +1
paulc: ok will keep pushing
… see what we can do before then
Media TF F2F

<paulc> See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0052.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0052.html>
paulc: as co-chair — I sent a message to all folks who had registered
… over 75 observers
… some groups have been re-labeled
effectively only Media TF is meeting not HTML WG
… I will put the archive in the minute
plh: for folks not attending in person, we are not registered
<paulc> Draft agenda: http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2015-10-Agenda <http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/wg/2015-10-Agenda>
paulc: working on draft Agenda for F2F but no progress as yet
… spending time working on MSE and EME issues (they are doing the work)
<paulc> (under construction)
… lots of stuff being done via email
… lots of progress being made
<paulc> Proposal: Draft plan is for MSE to be discussed on Thu Oct 29 and EME on Fri Oct 30.
… one of the main items to confirm with EME folks — this proposal will be discussed on Thursday and Friday
s/Froday/Friday/
paulc: 16 hours time difference — so remote attendance on Friday is difficult
ddorwin: I can try to participate on Friday — see what the agenda is
paulc: Matt asked previously what the distributed meeting logistics are — don’t know yet
… have moved away from Zakim to CIsco/Polycom and will be done via the web
… have not seen the arrangements yet
paulc: stay tuned. I will email folks I expect to be remote directly
… any other questions on this?
updating MSE/EME issue tags and milestones

<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0056.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0056.html>
paulc: email from Matt is our best guide
MattWolenetz: look at the email I sent
… for MSE it was pretty simple, not too many bugs so may not have used all the labels
… some mis-interpretation last week, but moving past that
… needs clarification can be a bug filer not the web author
… e.g. providing justification etc.
scribe: “needs followup” is a msg to the editors (from themselves) to investigate further
… “needs implementation” means editors have agreed and just need to make the pull request
<paulc> Are the Editors planning to remove the tag “needs implementation” off of issues when they are actually implemented and closed?
MattWolenetz: if bug is closed that would seem appropriate — David?
ddorwin: yes we can take it off. Should show up in another list though
jdsmith: whether or not we strip it off will not show up in the normal view
paulc: when looking for all issues, some closed issues had “needs implementation” set — that seems wierd
… would seem good to take this off
pal: maybe that should be a separate issue
jdsmith: I have no objection to clearing those irrelevant flags
ddorwin: we would need to clean up 22 of them.
… “needs implementation” refers to spec and not the agent implementation
… need another tag here?
paulc: so editors can use that as their work queue
MattWolenetz: agree with the discussion and the point about the agent implementation
… “blocked” means an external issue or another github issue
… “feature request” refers to a new use case not covered by the current spec
… this may be assigned to a future milestone
… “interoperability” refers to a lot of issues but meant as a severity flag — e.g. known incompatibilities, breaking stuff
… spec needs works here
… “wont fix”, “invalid”, “dup” these are things that should be closed
… Milestones should be followed with a digit — had some discussion re: v.Next as a version
… alphabetical sort could be an issue
… means issue is not in-scope of the current spec but good to track
paulc: david - anything to add?
ddorwin: no - did a lot of changing of tags and labels to match this
joesteele: was everything moved over?
paulc: 100% of MSE were moved over from bugzilla
… yesterday some of the EME issues started to be moved over
ddorwin: moved the clearly actionable ones over
<MattWolenetz> correction: s/100%/100% of MSE/
… there was one about distinctive identifiers I have not had time yet
… the rest I need to talk to the filers again
jdsmith: how many of those are there?
ddorwin: 8-10
paulc: there were 16 before
ddorwin: 2 will be moved still and 6 we need to discuss
paulc: lets get the link in there
<paulc> EME remaining Bugzilla bugs: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&component=Encrypted%20Media%20Extensions&list_id=60287&product=HTML%20WG&query_format=advanced <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&component=Encrypted%20Media%20Extensions&list_id=60287&product=HTML%20WG&query_format=advanced>
ddorwin: I will move 27168 and 27268
<paulc> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27168 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27168>
<paulc> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27268 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27268>
paulc: for the other 6, plan is to discuss?
ddorwin: jerry and I can talk about these
paulc: like to make progress on those by the F2F
… some of these you might want to go back to the original correspondent
… need help?
jdsmith: some might get closed instead of moved
ddorwin: e.g. the big “needs interop” bug — we need to track somewhere but not sure how to move
paulc: any advice?
<paulc> What to do about the scope related bug: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944> about CDM interop?
plh: I agree with David, we have to track this somewhere. Better to track as a bug but maybe with a flag saying not a blocker
… that flag may be controversial
paulc: david you are making great progress
Review of tags on 19 EME issues (open and NOT "needs implementation")

paulc: that number could be wrong now
<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+-label%3A%22needs+implementation%22 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+-label%3A%22needs+implementation%22>
paulc: link takes you to issue search
… these do not have “needs implementation” yet
… some have
… “help wanted” or “needs followup”
… how are we communicating this out to folks on the list?
… or the appropriate people on the list
ddorwin: some folks we do not have an owner
… might not need to be an editor
… almost like “to be implemented”
paulc: I have some on the agenda, since we are clear on what the status is now — lets drop into that part of the agenda
... still a huge backlog of “to be implemented” — 18 last night
… link coming
<paulc> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/labels/needs%20implementation <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/labels/needs%20implementation>
paulc: think this shows only open issues by default
ddorwin: searches sometimes include pull requests as well — watch for that
ISSUE-98 - Decide on ideal "waitingforkey" event behavior when update() doesn't resume playback

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/98 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/98>
paulc: agenda has short status
… needs author input and feedback
… David, who should we be targeting
ddorwin: I use this when it affects the authors — they need to pay attention to this
… could send an email on this
… this is about how they want the UA to behave
… I have a suggestion in there already
<paulc> David's change proposal is here: https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/98#issuecomment-147801649 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/98#issuecomment-147801649>
paulc: think we need the feedback on this — possibly resolve before F2F is not put on the agenda there
ISSUE-99 - Remove note recommending setMediaKeys() be called before providing media data

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/99 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/99>
paulc: marked as “needs review”
ddorwin: I have a comment in 8 on this — not sure why this was added
… think we should remove this
… will assign to Jerry to comment
jdsmith: I will make sure we have feedback
ISSUE-100 - Is "running the Encrypted Block Encountered algorithm" the correct way to Attempt to Resume Playback If Necessary?

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/100 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/100>
ddorwin: this is really spec input — please review
… probably does not impact interop — discovered via another bug
paulc: anyone want to take this on?
joesteele: I will put this to our internal team as well as anyone else
… try to get some feedback
markw: I am happy to look at it
ISSUE-101 - Normatively require distinctive identifiers to be different by top-level and EME-using origin

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/101 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/101>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27269 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27269>
ddorwin: next 6 or so are brought over from bugzilla
… this one is on me
ISSUE-102 - Define what to do when CDM becomes unavailable

https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/101 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/101>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27067 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27067>
really this is : https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/102 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/102>
ddorwin: not assigned yet
… probably low priority
joesteele: I will ask Chris Pearce for more feedback
paulc: make sure he is aware where where the conversation has moved
EME Initialization Data Correlation

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0020.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0020.html>
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0022.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Oct/0022.html>
paulc: original emails are linked — raised by DASH.JS work
… somebody responded, but no responses from the editors yet
… how should we process?
… long responses
… David or Jerry have you looked?
paulc: want to make sure someone is on point to answer
… and whether the answer makes sense
jdsmith: discussed with our media team
ddorwin: raises some issues we have discussed before and avoided
… causes some architectural issues — Jerry can take this on
… long discussion
ddorwin: looks to be about non-identical initData and deducing what to do
… we have discussed
… other issues also
jdsmith: are those issues related?
paulc: one is a reply to the other
ISSUES 103 through 110

paulc: look at these at a high level
plh: there is a general issue on dependencies in the specification — this is touching on the WebIDL
… there are two versions of WebIDL today
… the Web Platform WG has not decided what they want to do with theirs
… and there is a new one — with a reduced set of features which they believe can be moved to recommendation
<paulc> ISSUE-107: https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/107 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/107>
<trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-107 .
… Web IDL Level 1
… they mentioned a few issues but think they are in WebIDL Level 1 — when we move to CR can we trust these dependencies
… if we move too early they may have moved and we need to recreate dependencies again and again
… my recommendation is to not worry about this yet, until we know one will be a problem
paulc: at what point should we do this? we have a LC-CR bug already
plh: I am talking about the move to PR
… this is even later
… we should not ait to the last minute, but if EME draft is not stable enough yet we should wait, maybe David can tell us?
ddorwin: other than “iterable” these are pretty stable, we can correct the issues now or wait until PR
plh: I would not worry for intermediate drafts, but for the move to rec and v.Next we need to do this
… we only burn the references once we move to PR
paulc: If iterable is the only item and add a note that this is the only known feature not in WebIDL Level 1
ddorwin: I was saying whether we use is still up in the air
plh: think this is not a blocked for moving to CR
... just wanted to mark as something we need to handle in the next 6 months
... ISSUE-107 could be assigned to me
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/107 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/107>
paulc: leave this in your hands for now — change is pretty obvious
plh: I added a comment
paulc: 105, 106, 108 are all tagged for needs followup
ddorwin: 105 is mine — I need to draft a proposal but input would be good
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/105 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/105>
paulc: 108 is marked also
https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/108 <https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/108>
paulc: looks like another reference to the JSON spec
… is this covered by the PLH? ISSUE-108?
plh: yes — another way is to have a local biblio in the draft
… feel free to assign to me
paulc: 106 has a help wanted
… as entry to TS Common Encryption
ddorwin: this is blocked on the re-org bug
… I think Bob has a draft on this?
… would be good to have that since none of the editors are experts in this
BobLund: I submitted a couple of drafts that split the spec and added a new verion for the CENC and MPEG2 transport but would like feedback on what is already proposed
paulc: you may be the principal expert here
jdsmith: we should have someone from our media team look at the draft as well
paulc: if we make progress on this in parallel with the bugs Philipe is working on we can figure out what to publish
jdsmith: is there a link to that draft?
paulc: link in the bug
… linked from comment #21
<paulc> For Bob's proposal: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26738#c21 <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26738#c21>
paulc: out of time — lots of other stuff to cover but I will carry forward on some of those
… Jerry you promised to implement 7-8 bugs but asked questions and you need to revisit them again
… input is available
… otherwise they will be on the F2F agenda
paulc: Thanks to Matt, Jerry and David for all the work they have done in the last few week on this
… getting everything organized and out of bugzilla
… this makes things much easier for me
plh: for making progress on 105 who is best to help me?
paulc: david
markw: if anyone want to pass “needs implementation” issues to me I can help
paulc: please self-assign as needed
... some pull requests still waiting for editor review as well
... if there are new to be implemented ones that needs disucssion let us know
markw: some of those pull requests are blocked
paulc: thanks everyone!
... will decide what the next meeting schedule is in Sapporo
s/shoud not ait/should not wait/
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: 2015/10/20 16:19:09 $

Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2015 16:23:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:49:06 UTC