Fwd: Formalizing our permissions model using the Permissions API

Forwarding to the Audio WG since this relates to some of the output device
discussions we've had recently.

.            .       .    .  . ...Joe

*Joe Berkovitz*
President

*Noteflight LLC*
49R Day Street / Somerville, MA 02144 / USA
phone: +1 978 314 6271
www.noteflight.com
"Your music, everywhere"

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:36 PM
Subject: Fwd: Formalizing our permissions model using the Permissions API
To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>


It was suggested to me that since this document deals with some IP address
access issues, it should also have attention called to it on the WebRTC
list.

Here you are...


-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Formalizing our permissions
model using the Permissions API Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 20:41:28
+0000 Resent-From:
public-media-capture@w3.org Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 21:40:55 +0100 From: Harald
Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> <harald@alvestrand.no> To:
public-media-capture@w3.org <public-media-capture@w3.org>
<public-media-capture@w3.org>


I tried to think a bit about how I would formalize the permissions model
we have designed for WebRTC in terms of the permissions API's
permissions model.

After a while, it seemed to make sense, and I'd like to share it to see
if it makes sense to others.

The Google doc is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13c4hTlm2XgVYpxfGL1a8fcvI1CAUdIgd662DfElk_ow/edit#heading=h.fb7kn49jp9ff

Anyone with the link should be able to comment, if you want to comment
off-list.

The content is attached as PDF, which may be more accessible to some
(and is certainly more archivable).

Questions to ask:

- Is this something worth doing?
- If yes: Is this something that should be part of our core docs, a
separate doc, part of the permissions doc, or in some "other" category?
- Where did I go wrong?

Comments welcome!

Harald