- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 01:47:38 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17673 --- Comment #26 from Steven Robertson <strobe@google.com> --- (In reply to comment #24) > (In reply to comment #20) > > A device manufacturer can put a newer browser on a device with an older > > implementation of a protection system, and that older protection system > > might require something beyond key ID and URL. For instance, older versions > > of PlayReady require a checksum of the content key to be present in the > > initialization data in order to generate a challenge. > > Are there legacy DRM implementations out there whose key exchange messaging > maps to EME other than PlayReady? I'm uncertain, I've only had detailed interaction with Widevine and PlayReady CDMs. > Even in the PlayReady case, it seems that in order for the scenario you > mentioned to actually matter all the following would need to be true: > * The old DRM system has API surface for emitting key requests and > accepting responses in discrete messages that map to the EME API. > * Someone who cares can and will actually deliver a newer browser for the > device. > * The DRM part of the device doesn't support enough software renewability > to remove the pssh requirement from the DRM initialization as a software > update delivered together with the newer browser. > * The old DRM system has suitable output capabilities for integrating > into the composition pipeline of the newer browser. Apologies for being vague, but check the shelves of your local electronics store and you will find many devices which implement (older drafts of) the EME spec in the manner you describe here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 24 August 2013 01:47:40 UTC