On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:28 PM, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> wrote: > >> Thank you for informing us of your work. >> >> The introduction says, "it is not expected that a device will use this >> exchange format." Thus, I do not think it applies to any of the work we are >> doing. However, it is good to see parallel efforts to improve the >> interoperability of different content protection systems. >> >> If DASH-IF were to consider extending something like this to the client >> (UA or CDM), I would be concerned about the use of XML due to the size, >> complexity, and security implications. >> > > What are you talking about? Size, complexity, and security implications > for XML? > I was referring to the implications of including an XML parser in the client, especially in an unsandboxed CDM and/or a trusted execution environment with limited resources. > > >> >> Regards, >> David >> >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Please find attached a liaison statement from DASH Industry Forum >>> (DASH-IF) on their work on guidelines for Content Protection Information >>> Exchange Format. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am sending this on behalf of Iraj Sodagar who is copied on this email. >>> >>> >>> >>> /paulc >>> >>> >>> >>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada >>> >>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 >>> >>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 9 March 2015 20:26:08 UTC