[MEDIA_PIPELINE_TF] minutes - 8 December 2011

available at:

also as text below.

Thanks for taking these minutes, Jason!


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

             Media Pipeline Task Force telephone conference

08 Dec 2011



    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-webtv-irc


           Kazuyuki_Ashimura, Bob_Lund, Glenn_Adams, Mark_Watson,
           Jan_Lindquist, Clarke_Stevens, Duncan_Rowden, Franck_Denoual,
           Philipp_Hoschka, Russell_Berkoff, Juhani_Huttunen,
           Mark_Vickers, Jason_Lewis, Eric_Winkelman, Graham_Clift,




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Comments on Jan's proposal
          2. [6]OIPF input
          3. [7]Adaptive delivery
          4. [8]Schedule
      * [9]Summary of Action Items

Comments on Jan's proposal

    Clarke: let's get started, agenda. First item is look at Jan's

    Jan: there is one more change; split one error..is that ok?

    Clark: Discuss Separating Auth errors from other

    Mark: finishing off proposal, work on messaging and will post on
    wiki in next couple days

OIPF input

    <kaz> [10]Jan's write-up


    Clarke: next item is from Jan on OIPF

    Jan: There are 3 documents that are referenced...
    ... 1 - document about architecture
    ... they use Marlin ...

    Clarke: I've put up pages on Adaptive bitrate

    <ph> [11]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/ADR_Error_Codes

      [11] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/ADR_Error_Codes



    mav: What is the IP around using OIPF?
    ... What is the IP around using OIPF?

    Jan: there is precedence with a license

    Clarke: what is procedure/process for referencing outside documents?

    Philipp: We should use the document?

    mav: no, we should use ideas and incorporate them...
    ... no, we should use ideas and incorporate them...

    ph: We need to be sure we're interested enough to use doc/ideas

    Clarke: some preliminary investigation would be good

    <kaz> [13]W3C Patent Policy


    glenn: why did we wish to incorporate ideas, instead of reference
    sections in OIPF?

    <kaz> ACTION: hoschka to look at IP issues with referencing OIPF
    documents [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-83 - Look at IP issues with referencing
    OIPF documents [on Philipp Hoschka - due 2011-12-15].

    jan: There is a precedence with OMA

    juhani: section on patent policy that are referenced

    kaz: we should clarify what we want to refer to/include

    Clark: Juhani work with Jan to get guidance and clarify what will be

    <Juhani> "Juhani work with Jan to get guidance and clarify what will
    be included" - I think this is someone else than Juhani this action
    was appointed to ...

    <glenn> glenn: notes that section 8.2 of PP allows exclusion of
    claims based on "mere incorporation by reference"

    <kaz> ACTION: hoschka to work with Jan to get guidance and clarify
    what will be included [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-84 - Work with Jan to get guidance and
    clarify what will be included [on Philipp Hoschka - due 2011-12-15].

Adaptive delivery

    Clarke: next agenda item, WHATWG...around adaptive bitrate proposal

    <Clarke> Adaptive delivery page:

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/ADR_Error_Codes

    Clarke: also created page to summarize this

    Duncan: don't read too much into the source

    <ph> page should probably link to source in whatwg

    Clarke: organized into sections around params, error codes,
    feedback, new apis

    Duncan: would be useful to have 'bytesReceived' under feedback
    ... bytes received is more explicit

    Clarke: lets look at items.. parameter, maxLevel, it is the bitrate

    Duncan: This proposal is moving towards remote control approach that
    JS can influence bitrate selection

    MarkW: need lots of data and feedback in JS to enable heuristics to
    make good decisions for bitrate selection

    Duncan: added seconds on next segment to help logic

    <ph> link to original whatwg page?

    MarkW: it's unclear that we have enough information and details in

    Clarke: we should discuss the 3 architectures/modes

    MarkW: concern over mode three about sending video data through JS

    <ph> whatwg source seems to be

      [17] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Adaptive_Streaming

    MarkW: the google approach does use AJAX to retrieve data

    Bob: there is same issue that useragent needs to expose metrics

    MarkW: approach 3 is easier, but approach 2 the useragent is aware
    of bitrates and manifests

    mav: video append would be useful for smooth playlists or inserting

    <ph> +1 on mav

    <mark> +q

    kaz: we should include the original resource of WHATWG working group
    as Philipp pointed out, shouldn't we?

    <kaz> [18]http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Adaptive_Streaming

      [18] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Adaptive_Streaming

    <duncanr> and [19]http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Video_Metrics

      [19] http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Video_Metrics

    jason: is the 'currentSegmentDownload' a best guess of seconds based
    percentage? or real seconds?

    Duncan: best guess based on average bitrate


    Clarke: deadline of Dec 15 for HTML5
    ... we should work offline to get our proposal tight and use
    wikipage to send recommendations

    MarkW: unlikely that timeframe is possible
    ... benefit of approach 3 is enable experimentation....
    ... only add details to approach 1 to just report bitrate selected

    Clarke: we could get everything into html5, or try to influence
    implementations that drive back to standards

    Duncan: setting the level valuable, and querying the available

    Kilroy: there need to be ability to set max bitrate ceiling, but
    beyond that requires more event feedback to enable heuristics
    ... at early state of adaptive streaming, enabling apporach 3 (all
    in JS) gives advantages

    MarkW: unlikely HTML5 group may accept

    <ph> proposed resolution: go for option 1

    <mav> Kilroy, do you think option 3, as you described, can be
    proposed by 12/15?

    MarkW: timing of socializing this is issue

    Clarke: let's continue the discussion using the mailing list and the
    wiki by Tuesday

    <mav> What exactly has to be complete by 12/15? Does the proposal
    need to be finalized? Socialized?

    <kaz> mav and Clarke, maybe we should check with Paul Cotton as well

    [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: hoschka to look at IP issues with referencing OIPF
    documents [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: hoschka to work with Jan to get guidance and clarify
    what will be included [recorded in

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version 1.136
     ([23]CVS log)
     $Date: 2011/12/08 18:16:39 $

      [22] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
Tel: +81 466 49 1170

Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 18:17:37 UTC