[Bug 25434] Remove unsupported informative text in Abstract regarding OOB communication.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25434

niels t <nthorwirth@verimatrix.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |nthorwirth@verimatrix.com

--- Comment #7 from niels t <nthorwirth@verimatrix.com> ---
As discussed in the last call, to clarify the intend of using a side channel
while supporting EME: 
The intent is to allow interoperability in the selection of the CDM and content
decryption but allows flexibility in how the license is retrieved: 
The application may use needkey, isTypeSupported() and CreateSession() and the
CDM may use initData, but will not GetLicense via the Application but contact a
license server directly. We don’t see a change in the current normative section
to support this mode. 

To Mark's points: 
1) Agreed on the importance and the CDM should still respect the same origin
policies 
2) Also agreed on consistent behavior. The resulting workflow exists already
for the case where the license is already present, e.g. persistent or embedded. 
Also, the application will still select the CDMs it  supports and can ignore
other choices. 
3) Not sure what the old model is. It does not have a basis for
interoperability that we want to achieve. If it’s plugins, 
they are allowing direct communication and are widely used.

As a DRM provider we would disagree that the required modifications are simple,
since, for example, it has implications on security and IPR. 

Regarding the initial proposal, the Web & TV Interest Group requirements
document for content protection mandates "an interface to allow any content
protection system to be used to protect content" – so this should also apply to
content protection  that is deployed by hundreds of operators today. If this
was the basis for defining requirements for EME, I’d argue there should rather
be compelling reasons to exclude some content protection system from the EME.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Saturday, 17 May 2014 01:25:31 UTC