[MEDIA_PIPELINE_TF] minutes - 12 April 2012

available at:
  http://www.w3.org/2012/04/12-webtv-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking these minutes Joe!

Note on Media TF of the HTML WG:
--------------------------------
There was some discussion on the expected Media TF during
today's HTML WG call [1], and it seems the consensus was
extended to next Wednesday, April 18th.

Please see also:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0074.html

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2012AprJun/0005.html

Kazuyuki

---
    [1]W3C

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

                                - DRAFT -

                 Media Pipeline Task Force Teleconference

12 Apr 2012

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Agenda_Telco_12th_April_2012

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/04/12-webtv-irc

Attendees

    Present
           Kazuyuki, Clarke, Niklas_Schmücker, Joe_Steele,
           John_Simmons, Eric, Glenn, Russell, Duncan, Giuseppe,
           Mark_Vickers, Kevin_Streeter, Juhahi

    Regrets
    Chair
           Clarke

    Scribe
           Joe, joesteele

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Bugs
          2. [6]ADB requirements
          3. [7]new bugs or TF items?
      * [8]Summary of Action Items
      __________________________________________________________

Bugs

    Clarke: review bugs and first draft of reqs doc -- anything
    else?

    [9]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF#Bugs

       [9] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF#Bugs

    Clarke: no new bugs recorded -- any new ones?
    ... any status changes on the 7 bugs we are tracking?

    giuseppe: some comments on one of the bugs

    Clarke: anything we want to cover on those bugs?

    guiseppe: not for now

ADB requirements

    Clarke: just sent ADB reqs doc -- this will be submitted to
    HTML Media TF
    ... follows the MPTF template. not on a common repository yet,
    sent as an enclosure
    ... GoToMeeting to follow along
    ... two main things to cover today ...

    … reqs listed form our dashboard page ...

    … section for more comments -- not filled in yet ...

    … section on security and next steps ...

    … part to expand on today is terminology.

    Clarke: need to get additional terms that need to be brought up
    in the doc
    ... any terms that are related to ADB that need to be added?

    <kaz> [10]initial draft of MPTF Requirements for Adaptive Bit
    Rate Streaming

      [10] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2012Apr/att-0007/MPTF_ADB_Requirements3.html

    Clarke: we could add a definition for ADB itself
    ... probably "manifest file"

    giuseppe: list the open sources for this document as well

    Clarke: few definitions from the proposal itself
    ... "common time base" ?
    ... what about "trick play"?

    John_Simmons: for a doc intended to be requirements, any
    definitions not around objects you are trying to articulate are
    not required
    ... a lot of things mentioned will fall out of the proposals
    created and attempts to create a solution for the HTML WG
    ... main thing is to get the reqs clear

    Clarke: get things specific to a proposal and those should be
    in the proposal
    ... what about "user agent"?

    John_Simmons: this is a well define term in the HTML WG -- does
    not need to be defined

    Clarke: any other terms to define?
    ... please take a look at the TOC and see if anything is there

    <giuseppe>
    [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2012A
    pr/att-0007/MPTF_ADB_Requirements3.html

      [11] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-and-tv/2012Apr/att-0007/MPTF_ADB_Requirements3.html

    Clarke: <reading the TOC>

    joesteele: definition of "track"?

    Duncan: authors of the spec has Adrian instead of Kilroy

    Clarke: any other comment on the outline?
    ... back to the agenda

new bugs or TF items?

    Clarke: anything else to discuss here?

    John_Simmons: the TF has been proposed in HTML WG, comments
    have been posted, similar to previous discussion there are
    people opposed to there even being a TF ...

    … I encourage people interested in seeing this work to express
    their support for creation of this TF ...

    Mark_Vickers: do we respond to the CFC?

    John_SImmons: yes - just respond that we support the creation
    of this task force

    Clarke: I thought we had gone through this -- what determines
    whether a TF gets formed? simple majority? feedback? ...

    … how do we know when enough support has been given?

    John_Simmons: it is not a forgone conclusion that TF will be
    created

    <Clarke> ?q

    <glenn> there aren't really any rules

    <glenn> it is a matter of the chairs to determine consensus

    kaz: consensus is the process

    <glenn> consensus does not mean unanimity

    kaz: it would be useful to send out supporting message

    Clarke: seems unlikely to be agreement. does a vote happen?

    kaz: yes -- final resolution is a vote

    <glenn> no vote will occur if the chairs feel there is no need
    for it

    Clarke: companies get to vote?
    ... expressing support is useful and encouraged, but final
    decision is subject to ambiguity

    <glenn> the response date already passed

    Mark_Vickers: I am going to respond today and I encourage
    others

    <glenn> and it only asked for objections

    Clarke: any other discussion?
    ... any other topics?
    ... short meeting today. Will update the docs and send out the
    links for review.

    <kaz> [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
      __________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [12]scribe.perl version
     1.136 ( [13]CVS log)
     $Date: 2012/04/12 15:33:18 $

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

Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 17:41:21 UTC