[Bug 26600] Text is confused between persistent session vs persistent licenses

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26600

David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ddorwin@google.com

--- Comment #1 from David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> ---
(In reply to Mark Watson from comment #0)
> The sessionType parameter to createSession indicates whether the requested
> session is persistent or not. This should be independent of whether the
> license is persistent or not, which is a decision for the license server.
> 
> Presently, attempting to install a persistent license in a non-persistent
> session generates an error - this seems unnecessary, since the license can
> still be used for playback in the current browsing session.

The goal of the current text was to prevent a CDM from persisting data in the
non-persistent session case. While some CDM implementations might be able to
use the license for playback without persisting, it seemed unlikely, more
bug-prone (lots of checks wherever the CDM might persist data), and unnecessary
(the server can just issue the correct license type).

Specifically, there are existing DRM implementations that rely solely on the
server/license to specify persistence. I think it is simpler to catch these
issues up front and discourage issuing the wrong type of license than to expect
the following to be accurately implemented by content providers, license
servers, and clients:

> Note: The license server may return a license that is either persistent or
> non-persistent, independent of the session type. However, a persistent
> license obtained in a non-persistent session will be removed when the
> session is removed."

The proposed change in the second paragraph related to the request prevents the
server from issuing the correct license.

Note: "the request is for a persistable session, possibly with a persistable
license" was an attempt to improve on the previous text, which tied persistent
sessions to persistent licenses. As previously discussed, we may need to be
more explicit.

> 2) loadSession

I believe you mean update().

...
> NEW TEXT...
> Otherwise
> - Reject promise with a new DOMException whose name is "InvalidAccessError"."

Note: If we were to change the text, this case is not necessary since a session
cannot be created with a different sessionType.

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

Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 01:40:18 UTC