W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Request for feedback on EME Use Cases

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:02:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEnTvdDqhnrJDPduSn06u7371NiYNJ4mJxBS4JcZoZFxwJgtHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com>
Cc: "<public-html-media@w3.org>" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Hi Joe,

I don't think the description for secure proof of key release is correct,
This should definitely not require a "persistent" license (the secure proof
of key release and license persistence are orthogonal). Now I look at this,
there is confusion in the specification between "persistent session" and
"persistent license". Secure proof of key release needs the session to be
recoverable later, in case the key release could not be delivered, but does
not require the license to be persistent.


On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com> wrote:

> I have completed my changes to the EME Use Cases wiki (
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Media_Task_Force/EME_Use_Cases).
> I don’t think I can add much more to the general use cases without more
> constructive feedback from the group.
> Thanks to those of you who have looked and given feedback. For the rest —
> please take a look.
> I think we specifically need feedback on:
> * Are there general use cases that we should be supporting that are not
> there?
> * Are any of these use cases unsupportable by your DRM?
> * Is the level of detail sufficient?
> * Any additional key delivery mechanisms?
> * Are any of the current key delivery mechanisms objectionable?
> Joe Steele
> p.s. I apologize for not sending this sooner — it was sitting in my Outbox
> during my vacation. :-(
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 15:03:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:04 UTC