[GGIE] Minutes for September 23rd meeting

Hello all,

Here are the minutes from the GGIE (Glass-to-Glass Internet Ecosystem)
call on September 23rd:
http://www.w3.org/2015/09/23-webtv-minutes.html

and pasted in full below. Thanks to Bill for scribing again.

With regards,
Daniel

==========

                      Web and TV IG: GGIE meeting

23 Sep 2015

Attendees

   Present
          Glenn Deen, Leslie Daigle, Nilo Mitra, J Zhao, Dale
          Rochon, Bill Rose, KilroyHughes, Mike Wilkinson

   Regrets
          Daniel

   Chair
          Glenn

   Scribe
          Bill Rose, Leslie Daigle

Contents

     * [2]Call admin
     * [3]IETF BOF planning
     * [4]Review of TPAC Use Case slide deck
     * [5]Next Meetings
     __________________________________________________________

Call admin

   The prior meeting minutes were approved without change.

IETF BOF planning

   <glennd> Reached out to IETF to provide a BOF (or Bar BOF) of
   GGIE on the work we are doing; gain more clarity on related
   IETF work; convey that we have some ideas that may be of
   interest to them; and to discuss items we have identified that
   the IETF might be positioned to work on.

   <glennd > Areas of interest: RFC around content identifiers:
   Similar content IDs have been defined such as EIDR, Ad-ID, but
   GGIE’s concept of Cid is not limited to those two. Could also
   include e.g. private for content IDs. There is potential for
   work that builds on existing IDs based on some of GGIE’s Use
   Cases that were developed as part of the W3C Web and TV WG.
   Potential for a look-up system to store/retrieve information
   related to content based on identifiers.

   <KilroyH> Elaboration of ultraviolet features as relate to the
   proposed GGIE BoF. [6]http://www.myuv.com. UUIDs identify bit
   streams but don’t give an indication of relationship between
   works, metadata. Suggest doing a survey of content metadata
   that’s out there as a reference

      [6] http://www.myuv.com/

   <glennd> Haven’t heard back from IETF about whether or not this
   will be a formal BoF or a bar BoF or what.

Review of TPAC Use Case slide deck

   <glennd> Slide deck is being prepared by Bill Rose as a
   showpiece for GGIE at a potential informal session during TPAC
   in Sapporo. Basic idea is columns are actors with description
   of what each actor does. Is this format OK? Changes, new
   format?

   <?> Need to capture difference between static adaptive and
   dynamic adaptive systems

   <KilroyH> Good format for the basic UC-1. Suggest adding colors
   to illustrate differences in build.

   <glennd> Does this make sense for the audience?

   <LeslieD> need to look at how it works for more complex UCs.

   <glennd> UC-1b. Label columns with actors. Moving to UC-2.

   <KilroyH> Not sure what this adds to UC-1b?

   <glennd> Client is doing control and doing byte fetch. Not just
   simple start the flow.

   <LeslieD> Format is working so far. Adding labels and colors to
   show how they change from the previous will help.

   Action Item: Bill Rose to label and color code actors and
   highlight what’s new.

   <NiloM> Lower right does not fit the actor/column paradigm.

   <glennd> Moving to UC-3. Adds extraction of the Cid. 3 ways to
   extract it. Metadata, embedded A/V watermark, extract A/V
   fingerprint.

   <BillR> This one didn’t fit into the previous format.

   <glennd> Looks like we are evolving from metadata to watermark
   to fingerprint. Stack them instead of using arrow.

   <glennd> Maybe we don’t make this a UC but a foundational idea
   from a UC. Get rid of the arrow in the background. Looks like
   the format is holding up with some edits.

   Action Item: Bill Rose to change the slide to eliminate the
   confusion.

   <KilroyH> Suggest keeping the UC slides simple, show difference
   between each, focus on user experience. Select assets, move on
   to trick play, not sure what UC-3 adds to user experience.
   Getting into network mechanics will get complex and cause
   confusion and comments on all of the ways it could be done.

   <glennd> Some people will want to get down into the engineering
   details but the IG focus/scope is not how to do it but what we
   want to be able to do.

   <KilroyH> Suggest a title for the presentation might be “here
   are the problems we are trying to solve”.

   <glennd> We will give some of the background on what we are
   doing, scope, etc. Then move to the UC slides. Waiting to hear
   from the chairs. Scheduled to meet on Monday Oct 26th. There
   will be remote access capability.

   <glennd> Going forward we will take the rest of the use cases
   and put them in this format; circulate to this group for review
   and comments. Oct 7th meeting will be a full 90 min, as we’ll
   walk through the whole deck as it is intended to be presented
   in Sapporo No call on October 21, 2015.

Next meetings

   <glennd> Next call is Wed Oct 7 (last call before Sapporo
   TPAC). No call on Oct 21 or on Nov 4th.

   <glennd> Meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

  Action Items created during this call

     * Bill Rose to label and color code actors and highlight
       what’s new.
     * Bill Rose to change the slide to eliminate the confusion.
     * Bill Rose to add remaining Use Cases to slide deck and
       circulate for review

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________

Received on Thursday, 1 October 2015 01:44:32 UTC