[Bug 20944] EME should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944

--- Comment #29 from Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> For the record here, pasting in comments from roc on the public-html-media
> list that are relevant.
> 
> [[
> The proposal in the bug explicitly does not require publication of all the
> information required to reimplement a CDM --- since that obviously wouldn't
> fly. The proposal in the bug is to publish all information about the
> operation of the CDM except for the values of cryptographic keys. This
> matches the "best practices" of modern cryptography, in which the security
> of a system depends only on keeping secret keys secret, not on keeping
> secret how the system works.
> 
> Discussion in the bug answers questions recorded in the minutes --- please
> read it.
> 
> Rather than have group members speculate about the acceptability of these
> requirements to CDM vendors, we should elicit direct public feedback from
> CDM vendors on whether they can accept these requirements --- and if not,
> why not.
> ]]

I certainly don't object to (someone) contacting CDM vendors, but whether this
is done or not doesn't argue for a different form of registry. Also, since a
number of important CDM vendors don't participate here, it is unlikely to
produce any useful results. I further doubt that such vendors will disclose
their future plans and it is questionable to expect them to do so.

Further, I anyone is suggesting I am speculating about the current requirements
from these vendors for obtaining specification material, then I can assure you
I am not speculating.

In any case, I have satisfied my action item to create a draft registry
proposal. The TF will take it up at this point.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Saturday, 17 August 2013 00:10:51 UTC