- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 03:34:29 +0000
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26937 Praveen R Jadhav <praveen.j@samsung.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |praveen.j@samsung.com --- Comment #6 from Praveen R Jadhav <praveen.j@samsung.com> --- I am a novice in WebRTC and maybe I am not fully aware of the reason behind using getUserMedia to access client's camera/microphone from server. If the server is adding some effects on top of client's camera/microphone data, it makes sense, but for a peer to peer communication (for what WebRTC is being developed), I don't see why server should be receiving video/audio data at all. I was going through an IEEE paper regarding security concerns of WebRTC (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6894480) and there they have proposed to add peerIdentity constraint to getUserMedia so that video/audio data from one client is made accessible to its peer only if a session is created which actually makes sense. Also, being from a mobile industry, I am concerned about the power consumption as the camera and microphone won't be turned off even though the browser is hidden and no WebRTC calls are active. This can be a major performance issue for browsers in mobile devices. Maybe an equivalent browser calls to getUserMedia for disabling camera/microphone should help. Providing client's presence information to server and camera/microphone data directly to peer device after negotiation should suffice IMO(Ofcourse I am limiting server's scope). This should reduce security concerns as well. Please correct me if I am wrong. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 03:34:30 UTC