RE: EME At Risk Features

I will reopen the at risk issue and update.

From: David Dorwin [mailto:ddorwin@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 4:39 PM
To: Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com>
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>; Mark Watson (watsonm@netflix.com) <watsonm@netflix.com>; Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com>; public-hme-editors@w3.org
Subject: Re: EME At Risk Features

I am fine with Paul's suggestion for EME.

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com<mailto:jdsmith@microsoft.com>> wrote:
True.

These aren’t candidates for editorial changes.  We pick them up now or don’t.

From: David Dorwin [mailto:ddorwin@google.com<mailto:ddorwin@google.com>]
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 4:24 PM
To: Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com<mailto:jdsmith@microsoft.com>>
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com<mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>>; Mark Watson (watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>) <watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>>; Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>>; public-hme-editors@w3.org<mailto:public-hme-editors@w3.org>
Subject: Re: EME At Risk Features

Those are in different specs, so they can be made separately.

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com<mailto:jdsmith@microsoft.com>> wrote:
I thought about doing this yesterday, but elected to leave them separate.

There is an outstanding request from @wolenetz to expand the at risk entry for TrackDefaults.  If we want to pick that up, it would be simple to make this change too.  I believe we need confirmation from you, Paul, before doing that.

Jerry

From: Paul Cotton
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 5:15 AM
To: Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com<mailto:jdsmith@microsoft.com>>
Cc: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com<mailto:ddorwin@google.com>>; Mark Watson (watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>) <watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>>; Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>>; public-hme-editors@w3.org<mailto:public-hme-editors@w3.org>
Subject: RE: EME At Risk Features

I suggest the first two items be combined as “The "persistent-usage-record"<https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/#idl-def-MediaKeySessionType.persistent-usage-record> session type and the related MediaKeySession destroyed<https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/#media-key-session-destroyed> algorithm.”

/paulc

From: Jerry Smith (WPT)
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 4:49 PM
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com<mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>>
Cc: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com<mailto:ddorwin@google.com>>; Mark Watson (watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>) <watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>>; Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com<mailto:wolenetz@google.com>>
Subject: EME At Risk Features

The EME At Risk PR has been completed and merge.  It’s in the latest editor’s draft:

https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/


The following features are at risk and may be removed:

•         The "persistent-usage-record"<https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/#idl-def-MediaKeySessionType.persistent-usage-record> session type.

•         The MediaKeySession destroyed<https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/#media-key-session-destroyed> algorithm.

•         Setting the media element's readyState<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#dom-media-readystate> value based on key availability in the Queue a "waitingforkey" Event<https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/#queue-waitingforkey> and Attempt to Resume Playback If Necessary<https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/#resume-playback> algorithms.

•         Support for insecure contexts, including the Are insecure contexts allowed?<https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/#are-insecure-contexts-allowed---deprecated> algorithm and steps that call it.
The first two of these are secure release.

Jerry