Re: [EME] Updated proposal for secure proof of key release

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

>
>  It seems we can't find a set of generic capabilities which make secure
> proof of key release just another CDM behavior like heartbeat, so the path
> we were on doesn't seem to be working.
>
>  So, I'd suggest we keep the secure proof of key release section as I
> proposed, but cut it down so that it no longer duplicates the createSession
> algorithm text (now possible with your suggestion). I'll update that
> proposal today.
>

I disagree. The group has yet to reach a conclusion on how best to handle
the secure proof of key release scenario. Therefore, I think we should
continue discussions but not let this block FPWD. The current FPWD still
has a variety of loose ends, including some of the base events, format of
initData for ISO/MP4, and return value of isTypeSupported(). I don't think
there is any reason that key release needs to be fully resolved either,
especially when there is not consensus (as there was for the other FPWD
bugs).

Since the changes to remove unintentional limitations are minor and require
discussion (tracked in bugs mentioned earlier in this thread) and Adrian
already has already put a bunch of work into the current FPWD candidate, I
propose that we let people have time to review that version and have a CfC
for it on Tuesday.

>
>  …Mark
>
>
>>  …Mark
>>
>
>
>