W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > January 2013

Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:58:24 -0500
Message-ID: <5109B3A0.7070401@intertwingly.net>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
CC: public-html-admin@w3.org
On 01/30/2013 05:13 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
> <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote:
>
>     Meanwhile, is there any way that you could sketch out the beginnings
>     of what could form the foundation for a concrete proposal that would
>     address your issue?
>
>
> Here's what I have sketched out so far in my previous messages:
> 1) Require CDMs used with EME to be registered in a central registry.
> 2) To be registered, a CDM must be accompanied by
> documentation/specification that enables user-agents and content
> providers to interoperate with the CDM to the maximum extent possible.
>
> I've been thinking about requirement #2 a bit. Here is a proposed
> documentation requirement:
> Documentation should describe the complete operation of the CDM, in
> enough detail to enable independent implementation in user-agents and to
> enable content deployment by content providers, except for some set of
> secret keys whose values may be withheld.
>
> I believe HDCP for example already meets this bar --- and is widely
> deployed to a critical component of DRM for HD content --- so I think
> it's a reasonable requirement for a DRM system that we would bless as
> part of the Web platform.

Can I impose upon you to open bug reports on these two items?

component=Encrypted+Media+Extensions

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 23:58:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 23:58:49 GMT