W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Open Source implementations Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:34:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJQvAueLjAP6kQ=c0i2X+rf7855Jz7FATgcXFYz=NaAikBY2pA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Cc: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, "<john@netpurgatory.com>" <john@netpurgatory.com>, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> (If you are OK with revealing the unscrambled content
> to the user and only want to hide it from third parties, you just use
> https.)
> On this point, specifically, the user, content provider or both may also
> wish to hide the content from third parties whilst it is stored on network
> servers as well as during transport. http services from CDNs are cheaper
> than https services and https brings with it a number of operational
> complexities.

I see. If the CDN is treated as an adversary but the user isn't,
there's no need for open-ended vendor-specific CDMs, to address this
case. Instead, it would make more sense to standardize one
general-purpose HTTP payload decryption layer (using a flavor of AES
that encrypts every run of n bytes independently so that seeking can
work without having to read the stream from the beginning) like Hixie
said in the other thread.

A single mechanism that doesn't have secret parts of implementation is
superior to pluggable CDMs, because a single non-secret standard
mechanism avoids vendor lock-in.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 07:34:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:48 UTC