22 Oct
2016
22 Oct
'16
1:26 a.m.
Probably because my VF was unsigned?
Haven't made a proper test. Don't even remember if ti was SMPTE or
IOP, but the same standard for OV and VF, that's for sure.
I'm having some access to a few servers in the next weeks and I will
make some testing.
Good to know that it should work! I was convinced that the chains had
to match because a VF is in its own way a modification of the original
DCP.
For general information, this also applies for encrypted content? I
remember some discussion about this, something like that signature
matching was not yet enforced, but it will at some point because is
required by SMPTE.
Thanks!
Manuel AC
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Carl Hetherington via DCPomatic
<dcpomatic(a)carlh.net> wrote:
Hi Manuel,
As far as I know people are already doing this with DoM. The OV is signed
by somebody else's chain, the VF by yours; these signatures jus proves who
created the OV and VF and that they haven't been altered since creation.
How did your tests with DoM fail exactly?
Best,
Carl
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Manuel AC via DCPomatic wrote:
> I ask for your experience on this. I never fully understood the signing thing.
>
> Can I create a supplemental for a signed unencrypted DCP that I didn't create?
> I always thought that it's not possible, as I don't have the adequate
> certificates.
> I heard that an unsigned Interop supplemental may work, even with
> encrypted material on the new CPL.
> A couple tests with DOM failed, but I'm not really sure if it was
> something else.
>
> Thanks!
> Manuel AC