On Monday, November 19, 2018 4:21 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Scott Anderson <[email protected]> > > This protocol allows a client to ask the compositor to only allow it to > be displayed on a "secure" output (e.g. HDCP). > > This is based on a chromium protocol of the same name [1]. > > This protocol is mostly useful for closed systems, where the client can > trust the compositor, such as set-top boxes. This is not a way to > implement any kind of Digital Rights Management on desktops. The > protocol deliberately doesn't define what a "secure output" is, and the > compositor would be free to lie to the client anyway. > > Signed-off-by: Scott Anderson <[email protected]> > > [1] > https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/third_party/wayland-protocols/unstable/secure-output/secure-output-unstable-v1.xml > --- > > Intel has proposed a similar protocol as a Weston merge request [2]. > I believe these two protocols should be compared and merged to try and > come up with a general solution that everybody is happy with. > > While this protocol is currently intended for using HDCP, I don't > believe it should be tied to HDCP in any way. If any other similar > technology is developed, it would be nice to not need to define a new > protocol or modify this one. > > I don't think it's necessary for the client to know what type of > protection the compositor is providingi or if the protection status of > an output changes. It's up to the compositor to choose and negotiate > what kind of protection is required, and all the client needs to do is > trust that the compositor is putting their content on a secure output. > Clients should have no control or knowledge of how/where they're > presented. > > The protocol also should be per wl_surface, instead of any type of > global client state. A client can have multiple surfaces, and they could > need to be treated differently. For example, one surface may be the > protected content which uses this interface, and the other may be a > dialog box which could be placed anywhere. > > [2] > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/weston/blob/bb546cbbaaf6257ce018e7392747cc0fbdc1639f/protocol/content-protection.xml
Hi, Thanks for your patch. However, I don't think it belongs to wayland-protocols. wayland-protocols isn't designed for all common Wayland protocols. For instance, the IVI shell isn't there, and has a similar use-case (although not limited to closed systems). Also some other protocols like layer-shell have been rejected. I think a Weston patch in protocols/ would be better suited. This would allow protocol consumers to share the protocol while not including it in a repository where it won't be used because a large majority of wayland-protocols users don't have closed systems. That said, wayland-protocols' scope is ill-defined, so it's not like it's easy to decide whether it belongs here or not. Thanks, -- Simon Ser https://emersion.fr _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
