Re: Removing EME persistent-usage-record "at risk" feature

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> > The "persistent-usage-record"
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/#idl-def-MediaKeySessionType.persistent-usage-record>
> session type and the related MediaKeySession destroyed
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/#media-key-session-destroyed>
> algorithm.
>
>
>
> When we removed “at risk” features from MSE we created an issue for the
> action:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/136
>
>
>
> I believe we have consensus to remove persistent-usage-record from EME V1
> and would like to suggest we get started on this effort by a) creating an
> appropriate issue and then b) developing the needed pull request to make
> this change.
>
>
>
> Note that I plan to do a formal CfC for this change so we won’t merger the
> PR until that is approved.
>
>
>
> Who wants to get started on this work item?
>

​Without volunteering (though I might), I'd like to avoid losing the
removed text altogether, since there are several implementors referring to
this. So I'd like to create an EME V2 ED at the same time, without
prejudging where that would be progressed (here or in WICG, for example).

My question, though, is whether EME V2 should take the form of a completely
new version of the specification that would (eventually) replace the
existing one​, or whether we should have a stand-alone specification adding
the "persistent-usage-record" session type. The latter is hard to do
without monkey-patching unless we introduce explicit extension points.

...Mark



>
>
> /paulc
>
>
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>
>