On June 15, 2010 at 15:15, crosen said...
To elaborate on the above, Authentication Part 1 (from page 6 the DCP white paper above) is where the AVR and Display agree on the new encryption key used in the stream between the AVR and Display.
Authentication Part 2 - which is what you are referring to - is where the AVR sends the Display's key back to the Source so the Source may verify that the Display is authentic. However, this verification has nothing to do with the encryption key used between the AVR and Display. The key used for encryption between the AVR and Display is determined in Authentication Part 1 between the AVR and Display, which has nothing to do with the Source.
This has become a stupid debate that only serves the purpose of stroking crosen's ego. Does it help to diagnose issues with HDMI? Does it help to fix issues with HDMI? Does it help anyone figure out how to get a working system? Does it in any reasonable way enhance any one's practical comprehension of HDMI?
Aside from ego does it matter to a CI trying to get a working HDMI system how the data is encrypted? If we would all agree crosen is the smartest person on this board would it stop this thread? If we all agree he is right will it stop? Does it benefit any one save crosen's ego for this thread to continue? Is anything of use being learned? Does the method of encryption/decryption matter? It might to the cryptanalyst, to a hacker and it surely must to Hollywood. It might be of academic interest to some on this board but does it enhance any one's knowledge in any material way that matters?
Frank White used to begin his CEDIA courses by asking everyone attending why they were there. After taking all the usual answers he supplied the one every one missed but which mattered most. " You are here to learn how to use the knowledge learned here to go back home and make more money."
Does this debate meet the profit test?
Why would I go on and on with respect to poor Ed's JAP product? Because as crosen tendentiously has pointed out with quote upon quote source must authenticate sink. His product doesn't. In theory HDMI products can later be invalidated. To date none have but the threat of invalidation exists. The point is that legality in a product that can later be turned off is an issue of risk a CI needs to decide before committing to sell it into one of his systems.
crosen is stuck proving a tautology. For what reason? To what end? To demonstrate what? To prove he's the smartest guy in the room? He is the smartest guy in the room. There, it is said. Will it be enough? Will this endless, useless debate come to an end?
Would cosen deign to at least shed some light as to why he has gone on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about a question that has is only of academic interest, that will make no money for the CI and for which the answer, as far as I can determine, sheds no light upon any issue he will need to solve to get a working system? Other than proving you're right, what is the purpose of this?
Alan
