W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2013

[Bug 17750] Define the behavior MediaKeySession close() and clearing the keys attribute

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 21:54:31 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-17750-2486-ygxOMKZhBC@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17750

--- Comment #10 from Adrian Bateman [MSFT] <adrianba@microsoft.com> ---
(In reply to David Dorwin from comment #9)
> What changed between comment #5 and comment #8? What scenarios/concrete
> examples are we trying to address? (Also, see the reply to comment #7 below.)

What changed was thinking about Joe's comments and also reading Mark's comments
in bug 17199.

> > With our proposal for the MediaKeySession state model, two different
> > MediaKeySessions could be responsible for acquiring the same key. This means
> > that calling close() on one session doesn't offer any guarantee that a
> > particular key is released. In addition, the way many CDMs are likely to be
> > implemented, keys will be passed to the media engine and their lifetime
> > managed there.
> 
> We need to address the behavior around such "shared" sessions if we choose
> to move forward with the proposal in comment #8. If close() is just a hint
> (see below), is it up to the CDM to decide what to do? Whenever "shared"
> sessions are closed by the CDM, both should probably receive the CLOSED
> event.

Since I wrote that I've proposed that there is no explicit sharing - just that
you don't necessarily need to go through PENDING to get to READY.

> > I propose that we remove the close() method from the MediaKeySession in v1
> > unless we have a concrete example from on implementer of how they will use
> > it. In that case, the language of the spec should make close only a hint to
> > the CDM that may be ignored.
> 
> Should we be more explicit about close() being a hint in the proposal in
> comment #8?

I don't think we can be. I wonder if we can start with saying there are no
guarantees and see if we run into implementation problems? Are there specific
guarantees you are looking for?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 21:54:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:44 UTC