Re: [Bug 20944] New: EME should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop

On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:

> There does not appear to be anything that a 'standard' can do to compel a
> CDM
> author to publicly reveal the operation of a CDM or even the interface.
>

IANA does this kind of thing with its "specification required" policy and
there's no reason something like that couldn't work for us too.

The proposed solution 'to enable independent implementation in user-agents'
> does not appear to be generally practical because this assumes that it is
> possible to maintain 'protection' when implemented in this context.  For
> example,
> a CDM implemented in a web browser would give the browser access to the
> decoded stream allowing the content to be saved, and alternatively an open
> source stack could have an OS level 'stream access' feature to save
> content.
>

It is definitely possible to have a CDM that does not give the browser
access to the decoded stream.


> B. A proprietary stack that provides a protected context for the CDM
> that an open source web browser can defer to, and that does not permit
> the open source web browser to access the decoded stream for
> implementing a convenient 'save as' option.
>

That's one way to do it.

None of these would be compatible with Roberts proposal.
>

Your options A, B and C are all compatible with my proposal. Why wouldn't
they be?

 Rob
-- 
Wrfhf pnyyrq gurz gbtrgure naq fnvq, “Lbh xabj gung gur ehyref bs gur
Tragvyrf ybeq vg bire gurz, naq gurve uvtu bssvpvnyf rkrepvfr nhgubevgl
bire gurz. Abg fb jvgu lbh. Vafgrnq, jubrire jnagf gb orpbzr terng nzbat
lbh zhfg or lbhe freinag, naq jubrire jnagf gb or svefg zhfg or lbhe fynir
— whfg nf gur Fba bs Zna qvq abg pbzr gb or freirq, ohg gb freir, naq gb
tvir uvf yvsr nf n enafbz sbe znal.” [Znggurj 20:25-28]