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

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> No.  Again, a working CDM is *required* for this API to be of any use.
> >>  If implementing a working CDM is troublesome or impossible for
> >> various reasons, that makes the API itself useless.
> >
> > A no-op CDM is a working CDM. However, I agree that it is obviously the
> case
> > that there is an expectation in producing this proposal that non no-op
> CDMs
> > will be implemented and deployed. In that regard, I agree it is a fair
> > question to query the proposers (and others) on whether they have
> intentions
> > to build/deploy real world CDMs, and also that there is an expectation
> that
> > (eventual) implementation reports will include information demonstrating
> > that such real world CDMs have been tested. I presume there is such
> intent,
> > but it doesn't hurt to ask. However, I would argue that it is not
> > necessarily appropriate to ask (in this forum) for more details of
> specific
> > CDM implementations, such as licensing terms, etc.
>
> You're still wrong.  CDMs aren't floating in the ether to be used by
> any who are interested.  If the CDMs that are expected to be used are
> restricted in various ways, such as requiring licensing fees, being
> closed-source so browsers can't fix security bugs in them, being
> restricted to only certain OSes/platforms, etc., that's problematic.
>

We'll have to agree to disagree. It is not a matter of being right or
wrong.