W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Technical Review of EME (DRM in HTML5)

From: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 10:53:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHD2rsjucLVgW1HfnW1Jj_Wn13ba4Ciam==uPFO0RQQV3+oTRQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>wrote:
>> Let me be crystal clear. I would be delighted if this specification
>> figured out how to create an open and inter-operable DRM ecosystem that
>> was simple to implement, that was fair to content creators and viewers
>> alike, and that would work across all browsers on all platforms. Really,
>> I would.
> You appear to misunderstand the scope/goals of the EME spec. Defining "an
> open and inter-operable DRM ecosystem" is not in scope. The EME abstract
> [1] makes this clear, so it is clear that you start your comments based on
> a false assumption.
> The issue of content key protection is also clearly marked out of scope
> [2], so your comments on protection of key secrets are similarly based on a
> false assumption.
> I'd suggest you carefully reread the abstract and other statements in EME
> that clearly delineate the scope of this spec, and reformulate your
> comments accordingly.
> Regards,
> Glenn
> [1]
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html
> [2]
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html#faq-protection

Very well said, Glenn.

Manu, I had started writing a detailed reply, but there were just so many
issues that I chose a simple reply of caution. I welcome technical input
and suggestions, but there are few suggestions for improving
the specification among the theme that content protection is impossible so
we shouldn't bother. Such a discussion or personal opposition are fine, but
they should not be presented as a technical review of
a specification. Constructive technical input from a colleague generally
doesn't include hyperbole and statements like "Wow, what a fantastically
bad idea." and "So. Bad." It appears you had formed an opinion before even
reading the specification:
https://plus.google.com/102122664946994504971/posts/4aHTBBfxRfW ("This is
awful..." followed by "I haven't read through the spec yet...")

If you are truly interested in improving the specification and would like
to start another thread focused on technical feedback (preferably on
public-html-media where most technical discussion is occurring), I'd be
happy to discuss your concerns.

Received on Sunday, 27 January 2013 18:54:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:30 UTC