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

Re: Concurrent streams: detection vs enforcement

From: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 16:49:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHD2rsgV0EaKo-tKz0t1Xk2pVtQ8WQOsOJoUhmt6M4uOt4SyyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Cc: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

> I wonder if we should make it even clearer that the license renewal
> mechanism is targeted at *enforcement* of concurrent streams, wheras the
> key release mechanism is targeted at *detection* of abuse ?
>

This is important information for understanding the usage of the key
release mechanism, so this makes sense if detection is the only use case.
("Targeted at" doesn't exclude other uses, so I just want to confirm the
intent.)

>
> Presently, the wiki titles are:
> "Limited concurrent streams via license renewal"
>
> and
>
> "Limited concurrent streams via key release"
>
> I suggest we change these to:
>
> "Enforcement of concurrent stream limits via license renewal"
>
> and
>
> "Detection of concurrent stream usage via key release"
>
> It's worth noting, if there is still concern that the detection mechanism
> eventually getting used for enforcement, that the arguments against license
> renewal (UX, scalability) don't apply if enforcement is restricted just to
> those accounts where abuse has been detected.
>

Does this mean Netflix is also interested in license renewal? (Not for
general use, but would like it to be available to be applied as necessary?)

Is this a new development? Is this combination the reason that Netflix no
longer requires delaying shutdown for its use-case?

If so, that makes sense; I just want to make sure we understand correctly.

>
> Shall I make this change to the wiki ?
>
> ...Mark
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2015 23:50:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 6 May 2015 23:50:12 UTC