[Minutes] Media Working Group Teleconference - 2021-02-09

Hi all,

The minutes of today's Media WG call are available at:
https://www.w3.org/2021/02/09-mediawg-minutes.html

... and copied as raw text below.

Note the ongoing call for consensus for adopting WebCodecs within the 
group:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-wg/2021Feb/0000.html

As suggested during the call, I created a GitHub issue in the 
w3c/media-wg repo about synchronizing /TR documents with Editor's 
Drafts:
https://github.com/w3c/media-wg/issues/27

Thanks,
Francois.

-----
Media WG Teleconference
09 February 2021

    [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

       [2] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-wg/2021Feb/0004.html
       [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/02/09-mediawg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Chris Cunningham, Chris Needham, Eric Carlson, Francois
           Beaufort, Francois Daoust, Gary Katsevman, Greg
           Freedman, Jer Noble, Mark Watson, Mounir Lamouri, Peng
           Liu, Rijubrata Bhaumik

    Chair
           Jer, Mounir

    Scribe
           cpn, tidoust

Contents

     1. [4]Survey on registries
     2. [5]Web Codecs call for consensus
     3. [6]AOB

Meeting minutes

   Survey on registries

    [7]Issue #26 Group registries survey

       [7] https://github.com/w3c/media-wg/issues/26

    Francois: W3C process isn't good on registries. MSE and EME
    have accompanying registries
    … They've been published as WG notes
    … This is a non-normative spec, as a list of things
    … Different groups do different things with registries, Rec
    track may not be a good fit
    … Registries need to change once in a while. Looking at
    changing the process to accommodate registries
    … We want feedback from groups
    … The GH issue asks a few questions, so I'd like feedback from
    this group
    … You can contribute to the W3C Process CG directly
    individually
    … Is there a need for a CR phase for registries. If the
    registry is just a table of entries, is it enough to go ahead
    and skip the CR phase?

    ChrisC: If we were to pursue CR for registries, what's the
    process for updating the registry beyond the lifetime of the
    group charter?

    Francois: The process accommodates that now better than before.
    When a WG published a doc, we'll keep the WG around in a
    dormant mode, and the WG can update the document as needed
    … If the WG is no longer around, W3C itself can update it on
    request

    ChrisC: It's unclear if you'd need to go to Rec again

    Francois: Do we need an easy path to update the Rec? We
    simplify the process by skipping CR without requiring wide
    review
    … My own feeling is that CR doesn't necessarily need a CR phase

    ChrisC: That resonates with me. I anticipate creating a
    registry for Web Codecs, similar to the MSE byte stream
    registry
    … I don't see a benefit to adding more process

    Francois: I'll select the "Registries do not need a CR phase to
    experimentally validate the Working Draft before requesting AC
    approval." option

    Francois: How should patent policy apply to registries? Should
    there be a separate track for registries?

    ChrisC: I don't have legal experience to answer that. For
    Google, maybe a lawyer would weigh in on the importants of
    patent inclusion for registries

    Francois: If the group doesn't feel it can give a view, I'll
    select "no opinion"

    Francois: Next, registry definition tables. In some cases the
    defintions are separate from the table. Or should we prefer to
    keep them together?

    Jer: The EME and MSE examples have a document that points to
    other documents. Is that what you mean?

    Francois: It's more about the definition of the column headers

    Jer: I wouldn't want to pull the entire content of the registry
    into a single document

    Francois: You could keep the requirements for the entries in
    the registry document
    … I saw this as about linking to a real rec-track spec with the
    requirements

    Jer: Makes sense to me

    Francois: I suggest we wouldn't use this
    … If you're all OK, I'll reply to the survey and forward on
    your questions

   Web Codecs call for consensus

    Mounir: I want to check in if anyone wants to discuss this
    … The CfC is to move Web Codecs to the Media WG
    … and make a FPWD

    cpn: Do you feel that the incubation phase has achieved the
    overall goal of shaping the spec?

    Mounir: We asked the editors, their feedback is that there
    would be no expected change. The main use cases: video playback
    and communication use cases are well understood
    … We have less feedback on gaming or advanced audio processing,
    e.g., Ableton type software
    … We anticipate this won't change the API shape significantly

    ChrisC: I agree with that. There's a number of open questions
    in GH, but the skeleton the API with video encoder and decoder
    are pretty stable

    Mounir: I believe Chrome has an origin trial, which is a sign
    the incubation phase is ending

    ChrisC: Below all the codec interfaces is VideoTrackReader.
    There's an issue to deprecate this in favour of the media
    stream processing track, a separate spec incubated by the
    WebRTC WG
    … Conceptually its the same, you get audio and video frames.
    Their API shape was better, you can find out more in the GH
    issue

    Francois: If the CfC passes, I'd like to know what you think
    about keeping the document in /TR synchronized with the
    editor's draft. This can now be automated
    … Some groups don't like that, but others do. It affects Web
    Codecs, but also other Media WG deliverables

    ChrisC: I support keeping them synchronized

    Mounir: Don't we already do that for our other specs?

    Francois: I may need to check for a previous resolution
    … For MSE and EME we haven't published anything yet under the
    Media WG

    Mounir: It would be good to have a group position instead of
    doing it per-spec

    Jer: We could raise this on a GitHub issue to have the
    discussion

   AOB

    Mounir: Anything else for today?

    ChrisC: Media Capabilities spec has an issue and PR open to add
    WebRTC encoding and decoding info
    … This has been discussed with the WebRTC WG, they're
    supportive. I'm supportive
    … I'll go ahead and land that PR tomorrow. If anyone has
    comments on the GH issue, please do so

    Mounir: I'm excited to see this. Want to initiate privacy
    review

    ChrisC: I've added security and privacy considerations to Web
    Codecs spec. As we're gearing up to ship during the summer, I'd
    encourage all the user agents to raise concerns and give
    feedback

    cpn: Question about Media Capabilities and WAVE project, any
    further progress?

    ChrisC: We last spoke in December, some questions about whether
    the issue raised about CMAF was really an issue.

    cpn: So it's with them to follow up

    ChrisC: I'm ready to discuss further on that topic

    Jer: The WAVE project is defining a docuemnt the CMAF specs to
    Media Capabilities. MC offers queries that CMAF can't meet in
    the format itself
    … There's a bitrate field they can't fill out yet. There's some
    work they'll need to do, and if they find issues that can't be
    resolved in the mapping document, they can bring to the Media
    WG

    Mounir: Anything else?

    [adjourned]

Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2021 15:54:38 UTC