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

Re: [Bug 22594] noaccess / peerIdentity as constraints

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:31:42 +0000
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>
CC: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CF6F099@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 2014-02-22 00:09, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 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 :)

I agree, this is mostly a document structure question.

But to get me on the right page: the idea with connecting the identity 
with the tracks is to be able to inform the user in the permission 
prompt that the media can only be sent to a certain user. Is that right?

Stefan

>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Mandyam, Giridhar <mandyam@quicinc.com
> <mailto: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
>     <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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto:dom@w3.org>]
>      > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:46 AM
>      > To: Mandyam, Giridhar
>      > Cc: public-media-capture@w3.org <mailto: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 Monday, 24 February 2014 15:32:11 UTC

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