RE: Requirements [Re: Watermarking]

The need to meet the content owners requirements is not at question.  The EME is not defining new DRM systems that are aimed at meeting their requirements.

You have been requested to define the requirements that lead to the design choice that is the EME so that alternatives can be explored?

cheers
Fred


Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:58:31 -0800
From: watsonm@netflix.com
To: alastc@gmail.com
CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Subject: Re: Requirements [Re: Watermarking]




On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Alastair Campbell <alastc@gmail.com> wrote:



On Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 09:18 AM, Mark Watson wrote:
> I'm confused about why you think I should provide requirements for a

> problem that I have not proposed we address,

 Duncan Bayne replied (in part): 

Wouldn't you try to back up a step, and determine what the actual

requirements were that were driving those parties to demand mutually

incompatible features?

I agree that, in the wider context of the HTML WG having content protection in scope, getting the source requirements is useful and necessary. 


The EME spec bypasses the need for understanding those requirements by fitting with current models, so I can understand Mark's lack of interest.

It's not so much a lack of interest as:(1) I do not have the information requested in a form that I could publish and don't see any realistic way I could get it
(2) I think designing a new solution from those requirements in a public forum is very unlikely to be successful - for various reasons, not least IP - and I try not to invest effort in doomed projects

...Mark
 
 However, if the WG's scope really is content protection in general and other solutions arepossible, I hope Jeff makes some headway in finding someone to talk to.


-Alastair