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

On 3/2/2012 12:54 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> On 02.03.2012 19:42, Glenn Adams wrote:
>> Of course, at the black box level for the purpose of defining the
>> API behavior of the CDM, it is necessary to define semantics.
>> However, a single instance of a no-op CDM (that translates plaintext
>> to plaintext) would be sufficient to verify that behavior and test the
>> API.
> I do not see any reason why an API for a no op might be required.
>
> Maybe it is time to reject the proposal without spending more time on it.

I'm happy to call out: "show us an implementation".

It worked well to move WebRTC forward. It seems we've laid out a good 
amount of discussion and cases on this thread.

It's time to see this thing in action and in code.

-Charles

Received on Friday, 2 March 2012 21:02:02 UTC