W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > August 2016

RE: Formal objections to Encrypted Media Extensions

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 22:15:51 +0000
To: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
CC: "Philippe Le Hegaret (plh@w3.org)" <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BN6PR03MB2946422413AC94ECF0D6A818EA150@BN6PR03MB2946.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Philippe has pointed out that I missed the following W3C blog post from when the HME WG charter was last extended in April 2016.

There is also:
[[
We do recognize that issues around Web security exist as well as the importance of the work of security researchers and that these necessitate further investigation but we maintain that the premises for starting the work on the EME specification are still applicable.
[...]
The only required key system in the specification is one that actually does not perform any digital rights management (DRM) function and is using fully defined and standardized mechanisms (the JSON Web Key format, RFC7517, and algorithms, RFC7518). While it may not satisfy some of the requirements from distributors and media owners in resisting attacks, it is the only fully interoperable key system when using EME.
[...]
]]
https://www.w3.org/blog/2016/04/html-media-extensions-to-continue-work/

/paulc
HME WG Chair

From: Paul Cotton [mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 2:00 PM
To: public-html-media@w3.org
Subject: Formal objections to Encrypted Media Extensions

I want to remind those that feel that W3C should not be working on EME that the W3C has previously explained its position publicly on why this work is happening at W3C.  Jeff Jaffe’s 2013 blog post [1] explained the rationale for this work occurring at W3C when EME reached the status of first public Working Draft [1] and Tim Berners-Lee’s subsequent blog post [2] gave the W3C Director’s view on why this work is being done at W3C.  I also encourage you to review the more recent EME fact sheet provided by the W3C in March 2016 [3].

In addition when the Director approved the transition of EME to the Candidate Recommendation [4] stage in July 2016,  the Director considered several Formal Objections [5-6] lodged against the EME work.  The Director’s decision was to continue the EME work and to permit the specification to transition to CR status.

I encourage participants on public-html-media@w3.org<mailto:public-html-media@w3.org> to review this historical information and if possible to indicate why their objections are different than previous objections to the EME work that have already been dealt with by the W3C.

Participants should also be assured that recently filed Formal Objections will be recorded and will be reviewed with the W3C Director if/when the HME WG prepares an EME Proposed Recommendation for consideration by the Director and eventually the W3C Advisory Committee.

/paulc
HME WG Chair

[1] http://www.w3.org/blog/2013/05/perspectives-on-encrypted-medi/

[2] https://www.w3.org/blog/2013/10/on-encrypted-video-and-the-open-web/

[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/03/EME-factsheet.html

[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-encrypted-media-20160705/


[5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013May/0138.html


[6] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-media/2016Jun/0041.html


Received on Thursday, 18 August 2016 22:16:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 18 August 2016 22:16:23 UTC