GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 797231
protection: Add a new definition for unspecified system protection
Last modified: 2018-10-04 08:36:40 UTC
Created attachment 373816 [details] [review] Add a new definition for unspecified system protection In some cases, the UUID is not specified as in WebM spec.
This approach sounds good to me. Probably someone would like to bikeshed on the #define string value though :)
lgtm
Comment on attachment 373816 [details] [review] Add a new definition for unspecified system protection Generally seems fine to me but this needs more documentation. How is this supposed to be used, example uses, how would the application/protection-system know how to handle such protected data, etc
Created attachment 373826 [details] [review] Add a new definition for unspecified system protection More doc. About how the application handles such protected data, I don't think it should be documented here.
(In reply to y.bandou from comment #4) > Created attachment 373826 [details] [review] [review] > Add a new definition for unspecified system protection > > More doc. > > About how the application handles such protected data, I don't think it > should be documented here. It should be documented at least that the application has to have external information about how and with which actual protection system it handles the data. And maybe mention the webm case as an example. Without this, this addition is kind of useless as nobody would know what it's for and how it's supposed to be used :)
Created attachment 373827 [details] [review] Add a new definition for unspecified system protection
Review of attachment 373827 [details] [review]: Seems fine to me
Review of attachment 373827 [details] [review]: ::: gst/gstprotection.h @@ +42,3 @@ + * metadata, as encrypted WebM. + * This define is used to set the value of the "system_id" field in GstProtectionEvent, + * with this value, the application will use an external information to chose which choose @@ +46,3 @@ + * + * Example: The matroskademux uses this value in the case of encrypted WebM, + * the application will chose the appropriate protection system based on the information choose
Created attachment 373828 [details] [review] Add a new definition for unspecified system protection Thanks Calvaris.
commit 05a3da347b3b8dbaf470793dc3f9ebb23e6fc67f (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Author: Yacine Bandou <yacine.bandou@softathome.com> Date: Mon Oct 1 12:11:47 2018 +0200 protection: Add a new definition for unspecified system protection In some cases the system protection ID is not present in the contents or in their metadata. This define is used to set the value of the "system_id" field in GstProtectionEvent, with this value, the application will use an external information to choose which protection system to use. Example: The matroskademux uses this value in the case of encrypted WebM, the application will choose the appropriate protection system based on the information received through EME API. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=797231
> Probably someone would like to bikeshed on > the #define string value though :) Someone said my name? > +#define GST_PROTECTION_UNSPECIFIED_SYSTEM_ID "unspecified.gstreamer.org" Can we change that to something else? Maybe just "unspecified" or "unspecified.gstreamer" or "unspecified.gstreamer.freedesktop.org" - we don't even have control of gstreamer.org :)
AH, I see your point, let's say `unspecified.gstreamer.freedesktop.org` and be done.
Or `unspecified-system-id` actually? (I didn't want to start bikeshedding but we are into that it seem xD)
Both work for me. If there's no reason/precedent for the domain-type notation I'd go for "unspecified-system-id".
Followed up with: commit b89b1802df44829a0c034db5807bc893ad3c7774 (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Author: Thibault Saunier <tsaunier@igalia.com> Date: Wed Oct 3 18:23:01 2018 +0200 protection: Fix the string to define unspecified system id Setting it to "unspecified-system-id".