Re: {minutes} HTML WG media telecon 2013-08-06 - EME status and bug discussion

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:

> IIUC the proposed alternative resolution is in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Jan/0208.html .
>

I would be interested to know how a W3C specification could require an
implementer of an implementation detail of EME (i.e., a CDM) to register
it, or to put it another way, how could the W3C enforce such a requirement
even if it were written into the spec?

The only type of registry I see as practically implementable would be
strictly voluntary and have a primary purpose of collision avoidance among
key system names.

> I would be interested to hear from those who have implementation
> experience with encryption stacks whether that proposal can be made to
> work, I.e. how much knowledge about the encryption tech did you need to
> implement support for it in the browser (yes, I am looking at Google and
> Netflix ;-).
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
> On 8 Aug 2013 09:33, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>    glenn: there were a couple of comments since the last meeting
>>>>    ... i proposed a way to resolve this bug
>>>>    ... Robert O'Callahan responded that it wasn't as strong as he
>>>>    desired
>>>>    ... i responded that he'd have to convince the group of his
>>>>    proposal
>>>>    ... he's requesting a fairly strong set of information about
>>>>    CDM
>>>>    ... i'm recommending a voluntary registry in the wiki
>>>>
>>>>    adrianba: i'd be okay with the wiki proposal
>>>>
>>>>    glenn: does anyone support robert's proposal?
>>>>    ... does anyone think we should keep it open for longer?
>>>>
>>>
>>> So far as I can tell, the only rationale being presented for rejecting
>>> my proposal is "no-one in the telecon supports it", which is vacuous.
>>>
>>
>> I would not say it is vacuous since it represents the opinion of the TF,
>> or at least those present. Neither MarkW or IanF were present.
>>
>>
>>> Surely there should be some actual rationale that addresses the proposal
>>> on its merits?
>>>
>>
>> No decision was taken on the bug. I accepted Actions 32 [1] and 33 [2] to
>> create a voluntary registry for key systems on the HTML WG Wiki and to
>> create spec text for an informative note pointing at this registry from the
>> EME spec.
>>
>> If you would like to propose an alternative resolution including explicit
>> spec language, then please do so in order for the TF to consider the
>> alternative proposed resolutions.
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/32
>> [2] https://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/33
>>
>>