16748 2012-04-16 14:58:12 +0000 Clarification of the "Process key" step, as well as xmlhttp.response handling. 2012-09-04 16:11:53 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG Encrypted Media Extensions unspecified All All RESOLVED NEEDSINFO P3 minor --- 1 Pat_Ladd2 adrianba ddorwin mike petr public-html-media public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 66742 0 Pat_Ladd2 2012-04-16 14:58:12 +0000 It is clear why the proposal does not specify key and license transferal formats, but some informative text could avoid confusion. For instance, if HTTPS is used and a key is encrypted using some other system then double encryption is taking place and that isn’t obvious in the proposal. Suggest adding informative text in the following places: 1. In the addkey sequence, step 5.4.1, change “Process key” to something like “Process key, may involve handler (CDM) specific decryption”. 2. At appropriate places in the Javascript examples add a comment indicating the xmlhttp.response may be encrypted in a CDM specific manner. 72935 1 adrianba 2012-08-28 21:20:57 +0000 We're not sure what difference this proposal makes to implementations. Please can you provide more information about why this is necessary? 73183 2 Pat_Ladd2 2012-09-04 16:11:53 +0000 The request is simply for informative clarification to notify users of the API that xmlhttp.response decrypts and an additional encryption is needed if the response is not to be in the clear in memory. If the authors feel that that is self-evident then the bug can be closed.