Re: Oppose DRM ! Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

Boris,

What exactly do you mean by "out of band"? Many things are out of band from
the context of W3C. Indeed, the definition of HTTP is OOB from this
standpoint, as is the definition of SSL. So I assume you don't mean "out of
band" to just mean "outside of W3C" but perhaps something else? FWIW other
specs also leave things "out of band" -- e.g. in SSL you (the browser
vendor / distro) need to somehow determine what set of root CAs to include.
I'd be curious to know what exactly it is that disturbs you. I suspect it's
the fact that a (non-free) license may be required under some proposals,
but I don't want to mischaracterize you.

-Ian

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 1/22/13 5:17 PM, Clarke Stevens wrote:
>
>> 2. While rejecting the proposed solution might make a principled
>> statement, it is unlikely (IMO) to lead to the desired outcome of content
>> being distributed without restriction.
>>
>
> I think this is a gross mischaracterization of the desired outcome for
> many of us.
>
> The desired outcome for me is a specification that can actually be
> interoperably implemented by any implementor who wishes to do so, like
> other W3C specifications.  What we have so far is a specification that
> would require some sort of out-of-band agreement on various things to be
> implementable interoperably.
>
> That is to say, I think this is a use case worth addressing, but I don't
> think the current approach does much for interoperability, since it still
> requires various private agreements to actually achieve it.
>
> -Boris
>
>