W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > August 2013

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

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 21:51:51 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+ci1L2K+=VT_1jFpp-kQYWt-rDBZVVcD0id1Mbf_1YK-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I'm happy to do that, but first I'd like to hear that *some* incarnation
> of my proposal would be acceptable, so that I'm not jumping onto a
> treadmill.
>

Cox could accept a registry provided that it permits the registration of
key systems according to the following policies (as well as others if
desired) as defined by [1]:

   - Private Use
   - Experimental Use
   - First Come First Served

Since EME already calls for use of a reversed DNS name as a key system
name, any use of these policies must already satisfy the Hierarchical
Allocation policy [1], which ensures non-collision of key system names.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1

Cox will oppose any registry that mandates that all entries satisfy a
Specification Required or Expert Review policy (or equivalent); however, we
wouldn't oppose using language that "recommends" citing a public
specification.

G.
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2013 03:52:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:00 UTC