- From: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:26:36 -0700
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
- Cc: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHD2rsg0ouM=r560Uy=NkPERcofJZyf2_UHeOqpXLHvtHzJb0w@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 3:19 AM, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> wrote: > > Unless there > > is a solution that can be equally and reliably implemented across the > wide > > breadth of web platform clients, we do not believe secure release has a > > place in EME. > > Considering these alternatives... > > 1) No secure release in either CDMs or EME. > > 2) Secure release support in CDMs but not in EME; JS has to dispatch > on flags inside the supposedly opaque EME message data or on > vendor-specific EME extensions. > > 3) Secure release support in CDMs and in EME. > > ...it seems to me that from a UA perspective, #1 is the best option, > but #3 is better than #2. > > I'm worried that by withholding enum values from the EME spec to try > to force #1, we may not actually end up with option #1 but with option > #2. And if that happens, we'd be better off with option #3. To end up > with option #1, the right method isn't withholding enum values from > the spec but showing that there's a better way such that those who now > want to do secure release no longer want to do it. > > I think there are parallels to the "individualization-request" issue > (though that feature is truly optional in the sense that if you have a > CDM that doesn't do download-based individualization or you have a CDM > that does it out of band, then you don't need to emit messages of that > kind). > I understand how you might see parallels, but the issues are *very* different. This isn’t just about an "enum value" that is truly optional and useful to some implementations. This is about defining a session type - an entire mode - for simple online streaming along with the requirements it imposes on user agent architectures, as described in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2015Jun/0029.html. I agree with your point about a better way and hope we can all work together on this.
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2015 01:27:27 UTC