- From: Daniel Davis <ddavis@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:10:21 +0900
- To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Hello all,
Here are the minutes from the GGIE call on July 29th:
http://www.w3.org/2015/07/29-webtv-minutes.html
and pasted in full below. Thanks to Bill for running the show.
Note that the next call will be in THREE weeks (not the usual two) on
Wednesday August 19th from 11:00 am
Eastern Time (US). See here for the Webex call details:
https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Main_Page#Teleconferences_.2F_Meetings
With regards,
Daniel
==========
Web and TV IG: GGIE meeting
29 Jul 2015
Attendees
Present
Bill Rose, Nilo Mitra, Dale Rochon, Paul Higgs, Leslie
Daigle, Giri Mandyam, Mark Vickers, Daniel Davis
Regrets
Glenn Deen
Chair
Bill
Scribe
Bill
Contents
* [2]Call admin
* [3]Use Case: Streaming-UC-5 Streamed Content Ad Insertion
Interstitial Ads
* [4]Use Case: Content Identification UC-1 User Device
Retrieval of Content Address Using EPG/Title
* [5]Next meeting
__________________________________________________________
Call admin
<Bill_Rose> Review/adoption of 7/15 minutes- Adopted without
change.
<Bill_Rose> Agenda Bash – No change to the agenda
Use Case: Streaming-UC-5 Streamed Content Ad Insertion Interstitial
Ads
[6]https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF/UseCases/Streamin
g#Streaming-UC-5_Streamed_Content_Ad_Insertion_Interstitial_Ads
[6]
https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF/UseCases/Streaming#Streaming-UC-5_Streamed_Content_Ad_Insertion_Interstitial_Ads
<gmandyam> ATSC meeting some broadcasters voiced concern with
the potential for rogue apps to replace ads with alternative,
unauthorized media. There are many ways to remedy this. This
Use Case should highlight the issue and request W3C advice.
Action Item: Bill Rose: Add note to Streaming UC-5 highlighting
the issue and requesting W3C guidance/advice, need to discuss
during review and gap analysis.
<Nilo Mitra> Please clarify what is meant by inserting rogue
media?
<gmandyam> For example in DASH you can indicate to a DASH
client/player where insertion opportunities exist. ATSC asked
what app creates this? If a rogue app exists it might insert
other media at that point.
<Nilo Mitra> A manifest for the content and ad is received. The
app then directs to another site for the interstitial period
insertion?
<gmandyam> Yes
<ddavis> With regard to getting a W3C opinion, it is not for me
to say. It is open as to how this could be handled. Could be
left to broadcasters to prevent it. Existing standards might be
used to authenticate using e.g. hash, etc., to guarantee
insertion content is correct.
<gmandyam> When we address this UC we should discuss potential
ways to prevent this even if we don’t provide a solution. Could
be handled by proper business practices but a response from W3C
to ATSC would be good.
<Dale Rochon> A rogue app could also attribute an ad to an
actor other than the provider so the revenue would go to the
wrong organization.
<ddavis> there are a number of related issues that should be
explored across multiple groups and might be best addressed by
a liaison: WebEx Security WG – looking at similar issues so
might have input. Already have a liaison with ATSC.
<ddavis> [7]http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison
[7] http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison
<ddavis> there is related work in W3C on Subsource Integrity:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SRI/
<Dale Rochon> what about IAB?
<Nilo Mitra> seems like IAB would be the right place to look
for a solution to the issue of ad placement, attribution,
transactional metadata, etc.
<Dale Rochon> IAB Digital Video WG is the right IAB group for
us to bring this issue to. Should come from W3C. Not sure if
SMPTE would be a target group. Working on content ID binding
but not necessarily how it would be used in this context.
<Dale Rochon> Issues: where to insert ad; inserting correct ad;
correct attribution of ad played; was ad played all the way
through; metadata associated for attribution, insertion,
measurement, authentication, targeting, etc.
<Bill_Rose> read Streaming UC-5 to the group.
<Dale Rochon> don’t know if ad decision process needs to be
identified in the UC. There is a process but not sure if we
need to define the process. There is also a reporting process
generating what is happening and reporting it downstream.
<ddavis> (for Mark Vickers who was muted): “Another thing that
would help this problem of rogue web apps interfering with the
broadcast video is a way to securely identify the source of
applications delivered in-band with the video. Web security,
like CORS, is based on websites as sources, not in-band data
like in TV. This way, the web app that arrives with the TV
signal, presumably from the video producers, can be given
priority over other website origins.”
<ddavis> For reference, ad-insertion use cases created by the
HTML/Media Task Force:
[8]https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Media_Task_Force/MSE_Ad_Inserti
on_Use_Cases
[8]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Media_Task_Force/MSE_Ad_Insertion_Use_Cases
<Dale Rochon> is there a way for this process to delegate the
authority? Can the owner authorize another party to do the
insertion? A passing of the token?
<Bill_Rose> National broadcaster may need to pass token to
local broadcast for ad insertion.
<Dale Rochon> Other scenarios for token passing. Market level
insertion; sub-DMA insertion; individual device insertion.
<Nilo Mitra> UC-4 mentions some of these scenarios, not
necessarily for ads. New UCs for ad insertion could expand
UC-4.
<ddavis>
[9]https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF/UseCases/Streamin
g#Streaming-UC-4_Manipulating_streamed_content
[9]
https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF/UseCases/Streaming#Streaming-UC-4_Manipulating_streamed_content
<Dale Rochon> can be alternative content, not just ads. E.g.
Infomercials
Action Item: Dale R and Nilo M to work on submitting new
UCs/extend UC-5 to explore some of the issues raised above.
E.g. Decision process, reporting process, token passing, etc.
Use Case: Content Identification UC-1 User Device Retrieval of
Content Address Using EPG/Title
[10]https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF/UseCases/Content
_Identification#Content_Identification_UC-1_User_Device_Retriev
al_of_Content_Address.28es.29_Using_EPG.2FTitle
[10]
https://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/GGIE_TF/UseCases/Content_Identification#Content_Identification_UC-1_User_Device_Retrieval_of_Content_Address.28es.29_Using_EPG.2FTitle
<Dale Rochon> working with 24TB Study Group for EIDR and Ad-ID
. Others working in this area: CIMM.org; Ad-ID.org is a
“daughter” of American Assoc of Advertising Agencies working on
identifying ads. The ID exists. Working on problem of how to
associate and ensure it survives distribution. Might want to
establish early on the liaisons with the issuing orgs and work
with existing ID authorities.
<Bill_Rose> [walked through Content Identification UC-1]
<ldaigle> this probably makes sense to router people but
application people might be less open to each other. In reading
through the use of the term DNS may be confusing. May want to
replace the term DNS in the UC.
Action Item: Leslie to follow up with Glenn on use of “DNS” in
the Use Case.
Next meeting
<Bill_Rose> The next call will be postponed by 1 week to August
19, 11:00 PM ET. A notice will be provided for the call
following the 19th, either the week of August 26th or September
2nd.
<Bill_Rose> Meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
Action Items created during this call
* Bill Rose: Add note to Streaming UC-5 highlighting the
issue and requesting W3C guidance/advice, need to discuss
during review and gap analysis.
* Dale R and Nilo M to work on submitting new UCs/extend UC-5
to explore some of the issues raised above. E.g. Decision
process, reporting process, token passing, etc.
* Leslie to follow up with Glenn on use of “DNS” in the Use
Case.
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 31 July 2015 07:10:58 UTC