W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > October 2015

[GGIE] Minutes for October 7th meeting

From: Daniel Davis <ddavis@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:42:13 +0900
To: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56162C65.8080104@w3.org>
Hello all,

Here are the minutes from the GGIE (Glass-to-Glass Internet Ecosystem)
call on October 7th:

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

With regards,

                      Web and TV IG: GGIE meeting

7 Oct 2015


          Glenn Deen, Leslie Daigle, Nilo Mitra, Mark Vickers,
          Glen Goldstein, Dale Rochon, Bill Rose, Kazuyuki



          Bill Rose


     * [2]Call admin
     * [3]Review of TPAC Use Case slide deck
     * [4]Next Meetings

Call admin

   The prior meeting minutes were approved without change.

Review of TPAC Use Case slide deck

   <glennd> This is the last call before TPAC. The Use Case slides
   from September 23rd were updated to include the recommended
   changes from 9-29-15. We don’t have whole day. Waiting to hear
   what time the session will be held (AM or PM). Could use 2
   hours for main issues but if 3-4 hours we can dive deeper.

   <MarkVickers> Have not had the discussion yet. Will get back.

   <glennd> This is intended to be the draft deck. Will update
   based on today’s discussion. Intent is to send to members’ list
   ahead of TPAC for comment.

   <glennd> Slide 2: GGIE History. Started the review of the deck
   with discussion on GGIE’s background and our history, scope,
   goals. Looking at capture through consumption of all video
   content, not just professional with the goal of identifying
   gaps in existing standards. 5 focus points: Scalability,
   Content ID, Metadata, Identity, and Privacy.

   <glennd> Slide 3: Review of 2015 developments in industry.
   Bullets: # of creators grew rapidly; #of viewers grew faster;
   higher resolutions (4K now, 8K coming) requiring more
   bandwidth; new devices for capture – phones now at 4K; new
   platforms for distribution – 1:Many live video streaming
   (Periscope); No new technologies to make this easier to do.

   <MarkVickers> 2015 had HDR coming on stream, delivered by

   Edit notes: Delete “is” from second bullet, remove “crazy” from
   bullets 1 and 2.

   <glennd> Slide 4: Important to share the GGIE diagram with TPAC
   group. Captures much of the complexity we are addressing. Huge
   ecosystem that creates a need for a new taxonomy to describe
   it. Intelligence, decision making growing in core but Internet
   was not designed for that. Need to push intelligence toward

   <glennd> Slide 5: Related activities. SMPTE - Open Binding of
   IDs to media; ATSC 3.0 - ACR watermarking; IETF - NetVC WG
   (royalty free codec). New alliances have formed (Streaming
   Video Alliance (NBCU is a member), Alliance for Open Media).
   SVA is operationally focused on using best practices; short
   term solutions for caching, content delivery, etc; not
   developing standards; natural synergy with GGIE.

   <glennd> Slide 6: GGIE developed UCs around 5 areas:
    1. User Content Discovery/search/EPG/Media Library
    2. Viewing
    3. Content ID and Measurement
    4. Network Location and Access
    5. Content Capture

   <glennd> Slide 7: Task force limits. Operating under W3C IG
   rules. We can discuss what something may do/what it works like,
   no details as to how it would do it. Creates IP safe zone to
   foster creative discussion.

   <MarkVickers> Can discuss anything we want. We do not write
   specs. We can set requirements.

   <glennd> Slide 8: Requirement 1 from UCs. Focus on persistent
   identifiers that can enable intelligent mgmt at all stages
   using IDs assigned at capture or distribution and associated
   with the content using metadata, watermark, or fingerprint;
   solutions should support different ID authorities (Ad-ID, EIDR,
   ISAN, ...). Pros and cons to each way ID is associated with the
   content. E.g. multiple watermarks can collide; fingerprint
   files can grow large; metadata can get separated from content.

   <glennd> Slide 9: Requirement 2. Identifying content for
   search, EPG, apps is different than identifying content for
   streaming, decoding, caching. Search/EPG/Applications care
   about “work attributes” – title/ language/version, metadata
   (actors, etc.). Streaming/decoding/caching is concerned with
   format and delivery attributes – codec, bit-rate, resolution,
   latency, etc.

   <glennd> Slide 10: Requirement 3. Content IDs for Applications.
   Needs structure to permit applications to work with many
   different naming authorities – URI. Need mechanism to associate
   ID with content (metadata, watermark, fingerprint). Benefit
   from a standard API for useby browser applicaiotns enabling
   apps to extract content ID regardless of how it is marked in
   content. Call this “Content URI”.

   <glennd> Slide 11: Requirement 4. Content ID for Delivery.
   Ideally integrated with the network. Single “viewing” of
   content may involve multiple linked streams going to different
   devices delivering diff encodings and data. E.g. HEVC to screen
   with different audio codec that is not in first container. One
   suggestion GGIE has discussed is a 128 bit identifier that
   could be carried in an IPv6 address slot. Call this “Content

   <glennd> Slide 12: Requirement 5. Need to translate between
   Content URIs and Content Addresses. Fundamental linkage between
   finding content and accessing content. Open protocol system;
   bi-directional resolution. Content URI::Content Address =>
   1::Many relationship. Content Address::Content URI =>
   Many::Many relationship.

   <glennd> Slide 13: Requirement 6. Streamed content delivery can
   be viewed like a composed flow combing many parts. Not simple
   file copy from source to player. Orchestrated/composed playback
   of one or more component streams from one or more addresses to
   one or more devices over one or more networks. Enables rich use
   cases like Periscope.

   <glennd> Need to add a table of content to the UCs.

   <glennd> Question. After the review, should we add a summary
   page as to where we are now.

   <MarkVickers> Yes. Also need to add “what’s next”.

   <glennd> Looking to address some issues at IETF. Cisco
   presented a solution at the last IETF meeting. Does the W3C
   think it makes sense to liaise with Streaming Video Alliance,
   ATSC, SMPTE (watermarks). TVs becoming browsers. If TV can
   interact with the IDs it would help.

   <MarkVickers> What is the work output for this group? Is the
   next step is to turn the UCs into a requirements document and
   then turn the requirements document into a request for liaison?
   Several approaches: Output for most IGs is to set requirements
   that W3C turns into a spec in a WG. E.g. some of participants
   form/join a WG to do the work. 2nd approach is to draft
   something that is then refined by a WG. 3rd approach is to
   start a Community Group (CG) which can also write a spec. Since
   GGIE is trying to influence W3C and other groups we can form
   the CG and write specs or requirements that go to liaison. Need
   to determine the path.

   <glennd> Always thought of liaison as being a synchronization
   means but it does not fit all that we are doing here. Could see
   W3C working within its domain on an API spec. For work outside
   of W3C, we need to think more about it and discuss the best
   approach. Perhaps identify the high level ideas/needs.

   <MarkVickers> If it turns out the output is a W3C API spec then
   we can start by writing the requirements and start the spec,
   then start a CG to complete. Takes 5 people to create a CG.
   Influencing others is difficult. Thought this is the original
   idea but it is difficult to influence multiple outside groups.

   <glennd> Need to discuss at TPAC and decide how to proceed. If
   we can hold the meeting in the morning it would help people to
   call in.

   <kaz> Will set up a Doodle Poll to gauge preferences for the
   time of the meeting at TPAC (AM or PM).

   <MarkVickers> Need to have a concrete proposal for next steps
   at TPAC.

Next meetings

   <glennd> The next meeting will be held on Monday at TPAC in
   Sapporo, Japan. Time (TBD).

   <glennd> Meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

  Action Items created during this call

     * Glenn Deen to draft Next Steps for TPAC meeting
     * Bill Rose to create TOC for Use Case section.
     * Kaz to set up Doodle Poll to determine desired time for the
       meeting at TPAC for dial-in participants.

   [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2015 08:42:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:57:28 UTC