- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 21:05:03 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17673 --- Comment #58 from David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> --- (In reply to Jerry Smith from comment #57) > Changes made in https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/rev/5e4403d01787. Comments on the changes: 1) "Common Encryption files may contain one or more protection system specific header ('pssh') boxes, each for a different SystemID." - This makes it sound like a PSSH box can only appear once per SystemID. - I believe you mean that they are unique within a series at each location where a PSSH is necessary. - For interoperability and consistency, we may want to note that a PSSH box for all SystemIDs should be present wherever their are any PSSH boxes. 2) The second paragraph of section 3 seems to specifically address embedded keys. Is that right? Is this the *only* use of PSSH boxes in a 'moof'? Embedded keys are not currently covered by the main EME spec text. 2a) "Each ‘moof’/’pssh’ must protect the contained keys with a SystemID specific method." How can a 'moof' protect the keys? 2b) The last sentence explains why one might use sample groups. I believe this is the only such text in the spec and should be removed. (This would be valuable in a "Using EME with Common Encryption" primer, but I don't think it belongs in the spec/registry. 3) The third paragraph seems orthogonal to EME and like a DASH-specific usage of a generic EME capability (see also below). I think it should be removed. (Is it really CENC that specifies this or is it DASH?) 4) "The application may parse out 'pssh' boxes which do not correspond to the selected key system, and may not use the InitData from the file at all and instead use initData from another source (e.g. the XML element described above). - The first part is fine, but I'm not sure we need to specify it." - The second part is (or should be) covered by the spec and applies to all init data types. I don't think we need to specify this here. - As above, I think we should remove the XML reference. 5) Is there a formal reference for CENC 2nd edition? Is it just "ISO/IEC DIS 23001-7 2nd Edition" for now? 6) nit: s/boxes(s)/box(es)/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2014 21:05:04 UTC