Re: Liaison Statement on DASH-IF’s Content Protection guidelines

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:25 PM, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

this is strictly a quality of implementation issue, not an issue with XML
that isn't already present in parsing any kind of content;


>
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>