W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > September 2013

Re: NSD API security

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:18:52 +0200
Message-ID: <1379665132.25355.53.camel@cumulustier>
To: Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>
Cc: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>, FABLET Youenn <Youenn.Fablet@crf.canon.fr>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, public-web-and-tv <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Le vendredi 20 septembre 2013 à 17:28 +1000, Rich Tibbett a écrit :
> So there are a number of directions we could take this in:
> 1. Focus the specification around a CORS-only solution. CORS is an
> accepted mechanism to allow cross-origin communication on the web and
> could work well in the local network environment also. The problem
> with adopting a CORS-only approach is we have zero devices currently
> ready to step in to this brave new world with us. A specification that
> allows you to connect with precisely zero network services will not be
> useful.

I think that no matter what, the spec should support a CORS-based

> 2. Support whitelisting of specific local network services in the user
> agent, at the user's request to enable communication with those
> services. Even if we went with a CORS-only approach (see (1.) above),
> this could be a practical fallback to support existing/legacy network
> services. This would provide non-CORS-enabled services with the same
> privileges as CORS-enabled services from the user agent without the
> service itself needing to support CORS implicitly (as also proposed in
> the current NSD API specification).

I support the idea (at least in theory — it would remain to be seen
whether any user agent would feel confident to support such a
whitelist); but given that this is an exception mechanism, I'm not even
sure it needs to be specified —  since the user agent is ultimately
responsible for managing the same origin policy, user-specified
exceptions to that policy (which such a whitelist would be) seem beyond
what we need to define for interoperability. Or did you have in mind
some specific aspects that would need to be spec-d here?

Received on Friday, 20 September 2013 08:19:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:58 UTC