W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > February 2015

Re: Custom and extending CDM to support other DRM systems

From: János Barta <bartakok@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:58:53 +0100
Message-ID: <54D884DD.6050900@gmail.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
CC: Emmanuel Poitier <emmanuel.poitier@enman.fr>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
On 2015.02.08. 0:48, Mark Watson wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 7, 2015, at 1:09 PM, János Barta <bartakok@gmail.com 
> <mailto:bartakok@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> On 2015.02.07. 18:39, Mark Watson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2015, at 8:13 AM, Emmanuel Poitier 
>>> <emmanuel.poitier@enman.fr <mailto:emmanuel.poitier@enman.fr>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Janos,
>>>>
>>>> all you mentioned make sense to me, and I hope to others as well. I 
>>>> hope it will be considered by UAs and will be addressed accordingly 
>>>> for the best interest of users and video service providers.
>>>>
>>>> Le 01/02/2015 17:37, János Barta a écrit :
>>>>> Hi Emmanuel,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2015.01.31. 17:26, Emmanuel Poitier wrote:
>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 30/01/2015 16:59, Mark Watson a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Emmanuel Poitier 
>>>>>>> <emmanuel.poitier@enman.fr <mailto:emmanuel.poitier@enman.fr>> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Matt,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Le 30/01/2015 16:14, Mark Watson a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Glenn Adams
>>>>>>>>     <glenn@skynav.com <mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Emmanuel Poitier
>>>>>>>>         <emmanuel.poitier@enman.fr
>>>>>>>>         <mailto:emmanuel.poitier@enman.fr>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             I am currently looking after the information on how
>>>>>>>>             to extend the CDM to support other DRM systems,
>>>>>>>>             which is nowadays fixed and hardcoded for each
>>>>>>>>             browsers (IE with PlayReady, Chrome with Widevine,
>>>>>>>>             Safari with FairPlay). It would be nice to ensure
>>>>>>>>             the EME spec does provide information and also how
>>>>>>>>             browsers would support that in an agnostic manner
>>>>>>>>             to ensure a non fragmented market where the user
>>>>>>>>             does want to play a protected video content
>>>>>>>>             whatever the browser he is using.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         I doubt if anything has changed on this front, but this
>>>>>>>>         type of specification was ruled out of scope for EME.
>>>>>>>>         EME uses the term and concept "CDM" only in a notional
>>>>>>>>         manner, and does not specify any concrete interface to
>>>>>>>>         such a component.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         It is likely that interface and any mechanism for
>>>>>>>>         adding/extending UA supplied CDMs will remain UA
>>>>>>>>         specific, that is, until some organization steps
>>>>>>>>         forward to standardize it (assuming UA vendors are
>>>>>>>>         willing to do that... a dubitable proposition).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     ​Yes, such an API is not really in scope of W3C, never mind
>>>>>>>>     just EME. Just as NPAPI for <object> was created by UA
>>>>>>>>     vendors any such cross-browser CDM API would need to come
>>>>>>>>     from the UA ​vendors. Of course, the open source
>>>>>>>>     implementations of EME have CDM APIs in their code, but a
>>>>>>>>     major point of EME was to bring DRM under UA control, so I
>>>>>>>>     would not expect UAs ever to support download of arbitrary
>>>>>>>>     user-installable CDMs - at least it's not clear to me how
>>>>>>>>     this could be done and simultaneously meet the privacy and
>>>>>>>>     security requirements of the specification. Whilst UAs can
>>>>>>>>     technically enforce many security and privacy properties
>>>>>>>>     through sandboxing I'm not sure they will be willing to
>>>>>>>>     host CDMs about which they have no knowledge whatsoever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     …Mark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I can understand this point, though a service provider
>>>>>>>     protecting their content will evaluate DRM systems based on
>>>>>>>     the UA CDM DRM support before using EME which is at the
>>>>>>>     moment quite split across browsers. Thanks anyway for your
>>>>>>>     view on this issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ​ What's your alternative and how does it address the security 
>>>>>>> and privacy issues ?​
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> …Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would see a separate working group who will be in charge of 
>>>>>> offering a CDM description with security analysis based on the 
>>>>>> data flow interfacing with the CDM. It may be a consortium 
>>>>>> composed of all or the most used DRM providers to design a such 
>>>>>> component, so they would have a complete knowledge and the 
>>>>>> necessary technical constraints to ensure the required level of 
>>>>>> security delivered by the CDM component within the EME feature. 
>>>>>> It does definitely require a collaborative work to assure content 
>>>>>> protection and the legitimate use of protected content in a 
>>>>>> generic manner to let users choose their preferred way to use them.
>>>
>>> I would have no objection to such an initiative. But someone has to 
>>> take the initiative to create and generate interest in such an 
>>> activity and I am not sure who that would be.
>>>
>>> However, I am not sure that it is possible to offer the security and 
>>> privacy properties required by the specification based only on the 
>>> information flow across the boundary, so long as some of that 
>>> information is in DRM-specific, undisclosed, form.
>>>
>>> The sandboxes being employed by some UAs certainly try to do the 
>>> best job possible there, but UAs still need to know more than that 
>>> to be sufficiently confident of the properties of the entire system.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> do we really need to have a standard CDM solution or wouldn’t it 
>>>>> be better to focus on a standard, auditable layer amongst browser 
>>>>> components and  CDM modules (as it is already available in case of 
>>>>> Firefox), called CDM/DRM sandbox?
>>>>> In case of a Sandbox solution:
>>>>> -    CDM-Sandbox can be a “bridge” with well-defined, standard 
>>>>> interfaces
>>>>> -    DRM specific CDM can be an independent/closed/proprietary module
>>>>> -    CDM will be downloaded and activated from the website of DRM 
>>>>> provider based on user consent
>>>
>>> I think some people would consider this a return to the bad old days 
>>> of different ActiveX controls for each site. One of the primary 
>>> motivations for EME from our point of view is that the user is no 
>>> longer asked to install something: they choose their browser and 
>>> with that they get all the capabilities they need.
>>>
>> Why do we need to return to the bad old days? I hope we learned from 
>> past mistakes and we would be able to prepare a better solution.
>> Regarding the mentioned primary motivation of EME: considering the 
>> scandal around user privacy probably it would make sense to 
>> reconsider it. (Sometimes, it is better to ask consent than believe 
>> that silence gives permission. )
>>>>> -    Decoupled Browser and DRM layers (-> Multi-DRM support)
>>>>> -    etc…
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the biggest issue is that there is no interest from the 
>>>>> UI/Browser side to have a cross-platform solution. There is no 
>>>>> doubt about their intention is to set their own CDM in stone 
>>>>> (because of the additional incomes, e.g.  from licenses).
>>>>> I would like to believe that it is only my misinterpretation and 
>>>>> they (Google/Microsoft/Mozilla/Opera/Apple…) are willing to make 
>>>>> sacrifices in order to have a standard, sandbox based cross-CDM 
>>>>> solution. We will see…
>>>
>>> You should hunk about it from the users' point of view too, or 
>>> first. How do installable site-specific CDMs benefit users ?
>>>
>> Yes, definitely, I totally agree with you.
>> Option 1: browser-dependent service (except when the service provider 
>> has a multi-KeyServer/DRM env.)
>>     -> please use/download this particular browser to access your 
>> service site...
>> Option 2: cross-browser solution with downloadable CDMs
>>     -> you can use your favorite browser, but consent is needed to 
>> download a necessary component
>>
>> Option2 sounds better to me.
>
> And to me option 1 sounds better because it is the option which allows 
> us to avoid site-specific downloads. Yes, this comes at some cost to 
> the service providers who must support multiple DRMs, but it is the 
> service providers rather than the users who stand to benefit so surely 
> they should bear the costs, rather than the users ?
>
> ...Mark
>>
Which is the bigger trauma from the user point of view: if they need to 
add a new component to their favorite browser or replace the whole UI 
(even the OS as well in some cases )?
What about having a default pre-installed CDM which is replaceable in 
case of need? Yes, there are open questions with the sandbox solution as 
well (e.g.: protection of media player path) but I do believe that it is 
a good direction.


-Jani

>>
>> -Jani
>>
>>> ...Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Janos BARTA
>>>>> 1. dia
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> -- 
>>>> Emmanuel Poitier- Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
>>>> Enman
>>>>
>>>> Telephone:+33 (0)2 54 67 15 38	
>>>> 	Mobile:+33 (0)780 381 124
>>>> Email:emmanuel.poitier@enman.fr 	
>>>> 	Web site:http://enman.fr
>>>>
>>>> <emmanuel_poitier.vcf>
>>
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 09:59:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 February 2015 09:59:30 UTC