RE: Comments to "Requirements for Content Protection"

Hi,

I figured out my proposed tracked changes were not visible correctly for those reading the e-mail database in the .HTML format. Here are the discussed requirements again in clean after the proposed changes implemented.

Container Format
The content protection solution (/The standard interface to support content protection) must not advantage one specific container format over another.
Specifically, the choice of container format should not prevent the content protection system from operating.
Mandatory Baseline
The content protection solution (/The standard interface to support content protection) must support at least one mandatory method that can be used to enable interoperability between different systems.
Support for a baseline content protection solution allows at least one method for protected content to be distributed and used. This method should be unencumbered with IPR.
Browser Independence
The content protection solution (/The standard interface defined to support content protection) must work with "open source" browsers
Specifically, the interface defined by the proposed solution should be implementable in any browser without requiring any privileged information. This scope of this requirement is limited to the interface defined in the proposed solution.
Adaptive Bit Rate Media
The content protection solution (/The standard interface defined to support content protection) must be compatible with the (new) media source element as described in the adaptive bit rate proposal.
The content protection solution must work with adaptive bit rate streaming as well as traditional non-adaptive streaming methods. This ensures that the content protection systems will work with emerging streaming media types.
-Juhani


From: Huttunen Juhani (Nokia-CIC/Espoo)
Sent: 28 June, 2012 17:11
To: C.Stevens@CableLabs.com; public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Subject: Comments to "Requirements for Content Protection"

Hi Clarke, All,


A few (minor) comments/questions to the "Requirements for Content Protection":


1.       Observation: The use of terms "Content Protection Method" vs "Content Protection System" vs "Content Protection Solution" are used in some parts of the document in a manner that may lead to confusion.


2.       To clarify the meaning of a couple of requirements the following minimum changes are proposed in order to (partly) relax the potential confusion in the use of the terms mentioned above in comment #1. There are two alternatives ways proposed to express the solution (API) to be specified based on the Content Protection Requirements, i.e., "the content protection solution" or "the standard interface to support content protection". The editing may be incomplete but gives the idea how to hopefully clarify:
Container Format
The content protection solution (/The standard interface to support content protection) system must not advantage one specific container format over another.
Specifically, the choice of container format should not prevent the content protection system from operating.
Mandatory Baseline
The content protection solution (/The standard interface to support content protection) must support at least one mandatory method that can be used to enable interoperability between different systems.
Support for a baseline content protection solution allows at least one method for protected content to be distributed and used. This method should be unencumbered with IPR.
Browser Independence
The content protection solution (/The standard interface defined to support content protection) Content protection methods must work with "open source" browsers
Specifically, the interface defined by the proposed solution should be implementable in any browser without requiring any privileged information. This scope of this requirement is limited to the interface defined in the proposed solution.
Adaptive Bit Rate Media
The content protection solution (/The standard interface defined to support content protection) method must be compatible with the (new) media source element as described in the adaptive bit rate proposal.
The content protection solution method must work with adaptive bit rate streaming as well as traditional non-adaptive streaming methods. This ensures that the content protection systems will work with emerging streaming media types.
Br,
Juhani