Re: Encrypted Media proposal: Summary of the discussion so far

On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:22:17 -0000, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>  
wrote:

> If not, why do you think a different process should apply to this  
> proposal ?
>
> I think in this case we will get prototype implementations much earlier  
> in the process than required and that this is indeed a good thing.

I think early implementations are necessary to move the discussion  
forward, because the spec heavily relies on CDMs, and important questions  
about interoperability, accessibility, and architecture of the  
implementations cannot be answered, because they're undefined and  
CDM-specific.

Implications of the proposal can be wildly different depending on what  
actual CDMs emerge. If there is going to be a useful royalty-free CDM with  
defined interface that can work with various browsers and platforms, then  
the outcome can be positive.

OTOH if it turns out that only current DRM incumbents develop CDMs that  
only work with selected browsers, and CDMs bypass entire media stack, then  
outcome of the proposal will be no better than the current situation.

We can be endlessly arguing which scenario is more likely, but that's  
unproductive. With actual implementations we'll have facts to discuss.  
We'll be able to see what architectures were chosen and what level of  
interoperability and robustness has been achieved.

-- 
regards, Kornel Lesiński

Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 19:14:52 UTC