W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Open Source implementations Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:40:43 -0800
Message-ID: <4F4D1FAB.10108@jumis.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
On 2/28/2012 10:34 AM, Mark Watson wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>> On 2/28/2012 9:07 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>> 2012/2/28 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com>>
>>>     In your other case (server is untrusted), DRM is unnecessary
>>>     baggage;
>>>     you only need JS encryption/decryption that can be inserted between
>>>     the server and a <video> element of the user.  This can be specified
>>>     and implemented without many of the concerns that people have been
>>>     raising about this proposal.
>>> A solution that requires decryption of the actual media content in 
>>> JS would be unacceptable from a performance perspective, 
>>> particularly on resource constrained devices. The solution must be 
>>> readily implemented with reasonable performance on devices at 
>>> different ends of the spectrum, including TV/STBs (resource 
>>> constrained).
>> Citation needed.
> Do you mean some evidence is needed for the requirement that the 
> solution work on constrained devices, or for the claim that JS 
> decryption would not be sufficiently performant on such devices ?
> ...Mark

Yes, I'm sorry that wasn't clear.

I see no reason why stream ciphers written in JS and using Typed Arrays 
could not meet performance requirements.

Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 18:41:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:20 UTC