W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [Bug 22594] noaccess / peerIdentity as constraints

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:09:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNYDZayJLHq=3Tg4bHkVwW_0uOUPua5abgMCcuiaCeVuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>
Cc: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
To be honest, I don't care which WG document this is specified in. When
we initially agreed to put identity into the specifications, the guidance
was to put the pieces that were arguments to gUM in the media capture
spec and the pieces that were relevant to WebRTC in the WebRTC spec.

If people prefer they all go in WebRTC, that seems like a not very important
document structure question. But maybe I'm missing the bigger picture :)


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Mandyam, Giridhar <mandyam@quicinc.com>wrote:

> If the UA wants to display a dialog with specific text, I don't think that
> actual text needs to be specified in this document.  As a comparison point,
> refer to the guidance in HTML Media Capture for security:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-media-capture/#security.  But as far as I can
> tell, none of the DAP WG specs lay out any normative requirements as to the
> actual text displayed in dialog boxes (but if I'm wrong, please correct me).
> I also don't understand what "identity-of-peer-user" means in a Media
> Capture context. Moreover, there exist applications that do not require P2P
> communications, and I don't see why this kind of constraint would be
> relevant in this case.  Moreover, it is clear that there is no consensus
> within the group on this particular topic, so I don't know why the editors
> pulled this into the spec in the first place.
> This constraint may be more meaningful as part of any permissions prompt
> for  WebRTC, but that issue should be discussed in that WG.  If it has
> already been discussed there and rejected, then this looks like venue
> shopping;
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Håkansson LK [mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 4:20 AM
> To: Mandyam, Giridhar; Dominique Hazael-Massieux
> Cc: public-media-capture@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Bug 22594] noaccess / peerIdentity as constraints
> Giri,
> can you develop your thoughts a bit?
> I have on the list proposed that much of the peerIdentity stuff should be
> moved to the WebRTC document, but if the UA would want to display a special
> dialogue with the gUM prompt ("the app asking for access to your camera
> will no be able to record the media, or be able to send to anyone else than
> identity-of-peer-user") it should be documented in this document I think.
> Br,
> Stefan
> On 2014-02-20 17:47, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:
> > Sounds good.  I can file if you don't mind.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Giri
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:46 AM
> > To: Mandyam, Giridhar
> > Cc: public-media-capture@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: [Bug 22594] noaccess / peerIdentity as constraints
> >
> > Hi Giri,
> >
> > On jeu., 2014-02-20 at 16:34 +0000, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:
> >> I apologize, but we don't think this particular bug is fixed.  QuIC's
> >> opinion is that all mention of peerIdentity should be removed from
> >> this particular document.  We will not support this document going to
> >> last call otherwise.
> >
> > The bug I had raised was specifically on the fact that
> peerIdentity/noaccess where not MediaStreamTrack-level constraint, which
> has now been fixed. I think the move of peerIdentity to the WebRTC document
> might deserve a separate bug for clarity sake.
> >
> > Dom
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 23:10:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:24 UTC