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