[Bug 27124] Add "individualizationrequest" to the MediaKeyMessageType enum

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27124

--- Comment #11 from David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> ---
(In reply to Joe Steele from comment #8)
> In comment 0, Henri proposed an additional enum value to allow the
> application to distinguish between individualization requests and license
> requests. The discussion about the privacy implications of what server
> handles that request is irrelevant to this proposal and should be the
> subject of separate conversation. 

Despite the bug summary, much of comment 0 (and the subsequent discussion)
relates to privacy-related text and requirements.

As I said in comment 2, this bug seems to be more about those issues than the
simple enum request:

> I'm happy to discuss this, but I think that is a separate bug from the enum
> requested in this bug's summary. Maybe the summary should be changed.

I'm also concerned about baking an anti-pattern into the spec, so I think the
enum is blocked on this discussion.

(In reply to Joe Steele from comment #9)
> Looking back at bug 26683, where this change was introduced, I notice that
> the list of enums you chose to put in the changelist did not include two of
> the message types you referred to in the bugs initial description [1]. You
> referred to heartbeat and initialization as known use cases. The omission of
> those use cases seems to be rather arbitrary, since you did not include any
> justification for it in your closing comment.

My reference to "heartbeat" was a mistake - the use case I was thinking of was
renewal, which I did include. I didn't know anyone else wanted heartbeat.

The main goal of that bug and the changeset was to implement the API change,
not necessarily all possible types. The initialization was (and is) pretty
unclear to me, and I didn't add things I didn't understand or wasn't sure we
would need (better to add than have to remove). My closing comment said, "We
can add more types to the enum if necessary (file a bug)." This all seems to
have worked as intended.
> 
> In addition to the "initializationRquest" Henri mentioned -- I would like to
> see "heartbeatRequest" added as well. Would you like me to file a separate
> bug?

Do you have a use case for heartbeat or is this just for completeness with bug
26683? If the former, please file a bug. We may want to discuss whether we
need/want both renewal and heartbeat types.
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26683#c0

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

Received on Friday, 24 October 2014 23:18:13 UTC