Re: Network Information API published as FPWD

Le mardi 14 juin 2011 à 11:56 +0200, Harald Alvestrand a écrit :
> This draft is mercifully short, but is also likely to be so simplistic 
> as to be less than useful.

Are you saying it is useless, or harmful? It seems to me to be
fulfilling a number of use cases (so I don't think it's useless), but I
could be missing points that make it harmful.

> The API is not able to represent:
> - Boxes with multiple, simultaneously operational interfaces. This 
> occurs frequently with laptops, and is theoretically possible even on 
> Android.

The current notion is that the API would expose whichever connection the
browser is currently using. That doesn't preclude us from exposing more
connections later on, but that specific connection is likely the one on
which the developer is most likely to want to know about.

> - The operational state of an interface. An interface may be absent, 
> present-but-disabled, present-but-unconnected, or present-and-connected.

See above.

> - Any handle to get more information about the interface.

What kind of further information do you have in mind? One of the reasons
the interface is very simple is that we want to avoid exposing too much
information, e.g. to prevent further input for "fingerprinting"

> This simplicity may be justified if the purpose is to designate the type 
> of interface that the device is currently routing packets out of in the 
> absence of specific other information (the default route), but then the 
> specification needs to say that this is what the API is supposed to 
> represent.

Fair point, indeed. I expect Robin or Suresh will want to fix this.


Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 10:13:19 UTC