[IETF-IDRM] Fwd: [IDRM] DRM Taxonomy work

[Thomas Hardjono]

>Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:33:34 -0700
>From: Mark Baugher <mbaugher@cisco.com>
>Subject: [IDRM] DRM Taxonomy work
>X-Sender: mbaugher@mira-sjc5-6.cisco.com
>To: ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
>List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-idrm-help@lists.elistx.com>
>List-Post: <mailto:ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-idrm-request@lists.elistx.com?body=subscribe>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-idrm-request@lists.elistx.com?body=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-idrm>
>List-Help: <http://lists.elistx.com/elists/admin_email.shtml>,
>  <mailto:ietf-idrm-request@lists.elistx.com?body=help>
>
>Hi
>   We wanted to begin work on developing a draft on requirements for 
> IDRM.  Sam Sun, Thomas Hardjono and I discussed this and we think that a 
> good first step would be to develop a taxonomy, which is a classification 
> of the parts of an end-to-end DRM system from which we can develop a 
> common model, or models, and common definitions - so we speak the same 
> language to one another.
>
>   Our focus in IDRM is with the IP network infrastructure aspects of 
> DRM.  To me, this means that we are less concerned with the syntax or 
> semantics of rights specifications than in the handling and use of rights 
> metadata in end-to-end systems; we are less concerned with the specifics 
> of watermarking technology or with technical protection mechanisms than 
> in key and license distribution systems; persistent and globally-unique 
> names may not be as much of a concern to IDRM as are trusted repositories 
> of content works and metadata.  So there are things in our taxonomy that 
> are part of end-to-end DRM systems like watermarks, TPM, and rights 
> languages that are not necessarily things that will be a focus of IDRM.
>
>   At our last meeting, Thomas and I proposed that there are two distinct 
> sets of relationships in end-to-end DRM.  First, is between content 
> provider and distributor (aka "service provider").  We would use "service 
> provider" if the content were to be delivered to consumers over a IP 
> network but the distributor could be a company that manufactures DVDs or 
> a TV broadcaster that receives files from a TV or film studio.  Trusted 
> repositories for the files and rights metadata, authorization, and 
> authentication are IP infrastructure components that the content provider 
> may need to properly manage this process.  It is unlikely that technical 
> protection mechanisms or digital licenses are needed in this 
> business-to-business transaction.
>
>  The second set of relationships is between the service provider and the 
> content consumer.  On the Internet today, it is hard if not impossible to 
> unambiguously identify illegal sources and uses of copyright content 
> works from illegal uses.  Trusted repositories and sources with rights 
> metadata are important to DRM in this relationship.  Authorization, 
> authentication, and technical protection mechanisms may be needed so 
> standard ways to do key and license management will promote 
> inter-operability.   What we should not overlook in digital 
> rights-conferral and mechanisms that support it is the flow of 
> information assets from the consumer to the provider for the purposes of 
> authorization.  In this regard, "rights management" should include the 
> rights that consumers have with respect to information that they provide 
> and DRM is about information assets and not only copyright works.
>
>We want to begin developing our taxonomy and putting flesh to an IDRM 
>model.  This note outlines the general approach that we are taking and 
>we're soliciting any comments that people might have.  Also, if others are 
>interested in working on a draft document for the taxonomy, please let us know.
>
>Mark