- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:14:56 +0900
- To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
available at:
http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-webtv-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks a lot for taking these minutes, Juhani!
Note:
The next meeting will be held in two weeks, i.e., on March
29th.
Due to Daylight Saving, the time should be:
- 15:00Z
- 08:00 US Pacific
- 11:00 US Eastern
- 17:00 Europe
- 24:00 Korea/Japan
Please see also:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=03&day=29&year=2012&hour=15&min=00&sec=0&p1=0
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Media Pipeline Task Force
15 Mar 2012
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/Agenda_Telco_15th_March_2012
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-webtv-irc
Attendees
Present
Kazuyuki, Clarke, Mark_Watson, Juhani, Kilroy, glenn,
acolwell, David_Corvoysier, Iraj(?), Joe_Steele,
Bob_Lund, Jan_Lindquist
Regrets
Chair
Clarke
Scribe
Juhani
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Content protection
* [6]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<Clarke> requirements dashboard:
[7]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF
[7] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF
Content protection
Content protection Req #8 reworded: "Content protection must be
useable with specific HTML5 features such as media elements
(and features (such as timed tracks) within these elements)."
Agreed.
Kilroy: want to be compatible with media source element, new
Req #13 ?
Req. #9. "Media element features that are available in an
implementation must be available for encrypted content as well
as unencrypted content."
<kaz> (question by Joe)
Clarke: Intention is that certain elements are not eliminated
due to encryption ... like locating ... accessibility ...
Bob_Lund: Two issues: what source of access to media stream,
accessibility through various A/V tracks
Joe: Issue with the proposal ...
Bob: Enumerate text tracks .... sign, descriptive audio to be
encrypted etc. ... to be detailed
Aaron: Text tracks out-of-band not covered by encryption spec
....
markW: Agree with the out-band statement by Aaron ...
... Open what to do with the issue
Bob: Describe / identify the tracks in minimum
Kilroy: Encryption in two levels ....
out-of-band for the Kilroy part ....
MarkW: clear key not specified yet where to apply to which
extent
Clarke: Reqs for out-of-band ... ?
joe: Limit acceptance of the solution if out-of-band not taken
into account ... like Caption data
... Enough of value to protect
Joe: Support some of it encrypted
Bob: Strt and end of trakcs not to encrypt for browsrs to make
any use of the tracks (captions)
clarke: discussion to continue, people responses asked for
<kaz> ACTION: Clarke to work with Bob and modify the text om
content protection requirement under consideration #9 based on
today's discussion [recorded in
[8]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Work with Bob and modify the
text om content protection requirement under consideration #9
based on today's discussion [on Clarke Stevens - due
2012-03-22].
#10.The particular content protection method required to use
the content must be identifiable. ---> Change to methods
<kaz> Kilroy: would propose adding identifiable priority to
downloading
Kilroy: Add: ... prior to downloading the media
... metadata before the media
MarkW: Supported in the proposal
... MIME type is not completely descripttive .... answer of
support is 'probably', not strong 'YES'
Joe: Link to MIME type extnesions ?
Will be provided by Mark
#11.Any parameters required for use of the content protection
method must be identified and specifiable.
MarkW: Paramters in the content file itself
... scripts independent of protection systems in the proposal
... core idea there
... What paramters to pass .. please provide examples
... CP specific parmaters as a requirement may be more
difficult ...
Joe: Enforcement in CDM ... general purpose applications not
able to use ... ?
Clarke: Proposal does not violate the req ... but is the req
useful ?
Req. #11 to be deleted
#12.Specific errors relevant to content protections must be
identified and reportable.
Req. #12 is according to our previous detailed error
requirements
<joesteele>
[9]http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/HTML_Error_codes
[9] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF/HTML_Error_codes
<joesteele>
[10]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med
ia/encrypted-media.html#error-codes
[10]
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html#error-codes
Is it ?
MarkW: Earlier errors more on network etc. errors ... still to
be addressed in LC
Clarke: #12 to satisfy CP proposal ... ? ---> OK
#13.The content protection method must be compatible with the
(new) media source element as described in the adaptive bit
rate proposal.
Aaron: Compatibility should not require implementation
mandatory, otherwise OK
<Clarke> new ABR proposal:
[11]http://html5-mediasource-api.googlecode.com/svn/tags/0.4/dr
aft-spec/mediasource-draft-spec.html
[11]
http://html5-mediasource-api.googlecode.com/svn/tags/0.4/draft-spec/mediasource-draft-spec.html
Adaptive Streaming - revised proposal ...
Aaron: Source ID added ...
... allows two separate streams
... enables swithcing lang, different decoders, ...
... Source ID main API change
... overlapping regions, rules, ... clarifications
... for compatibility reasons ... to nail down details
... Byte stream format ?
Aaron: WebM and ISO file formats ... examples of usage
... How to limit the ...
How much data buffered by browser
waht tpyes of splices
sample rate changes
Appending byte ranges ...
Clarke: Comments to authors ?
Joe: Issues identified ?
In section 8
<kaz> [12]Open Issues
[12]
http://html5-mediasource-api.googlecode.com/svn/tags/0.4/draft-spec/mediasource-draft-spec.html#open-issues
Clarke: Administrative issue ... next week not chaired by
Clarke
Joe: Progress in the new TF ? If no, then can skip next week
telco
Clarke: Proceeding well, rules under creation, to become memebr
of HTML WG to contirbute
<kaz> [13]HTML WG discussion
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0450.html
MarkW: Call for Consensus coming
... timing open
Kaz: join HTML WG to participate ... name Encrypted Media TF
... not much an issue as TF only to create
Clarke: Content protection is the first priority ... reqs to be
ready ... next telco after two weeks ?
Agreed
Kilroy: Flow diagram sect. 1 in , CDM diagram in Protection
proposal ...how to look as one
<kaz> [14]Section 1 of "Encrypted Media Extensions" proposal
[14]
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html#introduction
[ adjourned ]
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Clarke to work with Bob and modify the text om
content protection requirement under consideration #9 based on
today's discussion [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2012/03/15-webtv-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [16]scribe.perl version
1.136 ( [17]CVS log)
$Date: 2012/03/15 16:08:02 $
[16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 16:16:11 UTC