W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Identifying the type of device for DRM purposes

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:50:46 +0000
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: Andrew Livingston <Andrew.Livingston@bbc.co.uk>, "<public-html-media@w3.org>" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0620037B-A655-41A0-AD5C-8CCC1D9BF8B5@netflix.com>

On Feb 12, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:

> (Quotes reordered)
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Andrew Livingston
> <Andrew.Livingston@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>>> From: Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com]
> ...
>>> I can't speak for the BBC's requirements, but for our part the UA string is insufficient because it is not vouched for by the CDM or some other similarly secure component.
> ...
>> That's also our position - i.e. that the user agent string is unlikely to be sufficiently trustworthy. Sorry if this was unclear.
> 
> Do you need more than the name of the operating system (as vouched for
> by the CDM) to make the inferences you need to make? Or would
> something less granular be sufficient (e.g. grouping operating systems
> that run on at least desktops together and operating systems that run
> at least on phones together and letting tablets fall into either
> category depending on their lineage: Windows 8 tablets to the former
> group and Android tablets to the latter group)? Or is it only a matter
> of whether the system is considered to be a TV (set top box connected
> to a TV) or not (e.g. Mac Mini that might be connected to a TV
> anyway)?

Today, for devices such as phones, TVs and Set Top Boxes, we know the exact make and model and possibly subcategories of that. We'd have to look at a specific proposal to analyze whether coarser granularity would be ok.

ůMark

> 
> -- 
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 16:51:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:48:32 UTC