On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:50 PM, David Singer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:46 , Henri Sivonen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:47 PM, David Singer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> So far, we haven't seen a deployed CDM that is like a plug-in in terms >>>> of the distribution model. >>> >>> >>> True, but I would expect that if OMA PDCF ever got traction, >> >> What's OMA PDCF and why would it lead to plug-in-like EME CDM distribution? > > OpenMobileAlliance.
Oh, I'm familiar with the OMA acronym. It is PDCF that I'm on not familiar with and didn't find anything definitive by searching on the Web. > It's a protection format that's intended to be multi-vendor usable (they > include key-exchange, and so on). It has not got much traction since > publication, I admit. My understanding has been that the RAND licensing maneuvering that happened around OMA DRM version 2 made OMA DRM version 2 not offer any advantages over other DRM schemes--especially Marlin. Is my understanding correct? Why do you think OMA PDCF would lead to plug-in-like EME CDM distribution if OMA PDCF got traction? > I am not going to comment on whether Ultraviolet has a good model, etc., I > merely note it exists. There is quite a logic gap between noting that UltraViolet exists and its leading to plug-in-like EME CDM distribution. -- Henri Sivonen [email protected] http://hsivonen.fi/
