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

On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:

> 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.
>

Just to be clear, IANA requires that registration of a standards based MIME
Type provide a reference to a specification. It does not require this for
vendor specific or private registrations of MIME Types.

This is why I continue to insist (in discussions about use of a registry)
that it provide this same type of partition to its registration space.
Furthermore, one can say that there is already a registry for CDMs, since
EME specifies the use of a reversed domain name for keySystem values. This
effectively allows for both standards based (sub)registries, e.g.,
org.iana.assignments.eme.keysystems, and vendor specific or private
(sub)registries, e.g., com.acme.private.*.

So if someone wishes to draft an RFC that defines an standards based EME
keySystem registry in order to define a specific (sub)registry, then I
would certainly not object. But doing so does not mean that one can't
implement CDMs that use legitimate, shared keySystem identifiers that do
not belong to that (sub)registry.