- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 20:19:46 +0000
- To: public-audio@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19803 --- Comment #6 from Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> --- (In reply to comment #5) > Resolved: keeping fingerprint, better describing matching. > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/audio/rev/f572fe073d58 The current wording doesn't quite communicate what I was proposing at the teleconf: If the system detects (for example) two devices attached to the user's computer with the exact same pool of data used to generate the fingerprint, the second one's fingerprint generation would inject information (of the previous attempted fingerprint not being unique) to theentropy pool, and a third device would do the same, and so on, thus maintaining association unless the order of the devices changes. This, I think, is the best guess you can get at uniquely identifying a device, and the user agent doesn't need to maintain or store any information about devices the user has had. A possible implementation in JavaScript that would catch the gist of that: var devices = new Map() function createFingerprintForDevice(device) { var fingerprint var poolExtra = '' do { fingerprint = createUUID(device.entropyPool + poolExtra) poolExtra += '#existed' } while (devices.has(fingerprint)) devices.set(fingerprint, device) return fingerprint } Not sure how to word this in the spec. Would it be worth dictating this, regardless of how good the implementation is at producing unique fingerprints? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 7 December 2012 20:19:50 UTC