Re: Formalizing our permissions model using the Permissions API

Den 30. nov. 2015 08:48, skrev Stefan Håkansson LK:
> This looks quite good IMO.
> 
> But, for microphone and camera permissions, would it not make sense to 
> have a list of devideIds? For the situation where the UA has stored 
> permissions (for this origin) to use camera A and B but not C?
> 
> (Slightly different from all-cameras).

My reading of the permissions model is that if a permission is qualified
by an ID, each different ID value turns the permisison into a different
permission.

So if there existed 3 cameras A, B and C, I have permissions to camera A
and B, I would have the permissions "camera A" and "camera B", and there
would exist a permission "camera C" that I did not have.

The point of "all-cameras" would be to say "I have permission to use
camera A, B and C, and if camera D is plugged in, I will have permission
to use that too".

I hope someone can verify that they read the permissions doc the same
way (or not).

> 
> Stefan
> 
> On 16/11/15 21:42, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> I tried to think a bit about how I would formalize the permissions model
>> we have designed for WebRTC in terms of the permissions API's
>> permissions model.
>>
>> After a while, it seemed to make sense, and I'd like to share it to see
>> if it makes sense to others.
>>
>> The Google doc is here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13c4hTlm2XgVYpxfGL1a8fcvI1CAUdIgd662DfElk_ow/edit#heading=h.fb7kn49jp9ff
>>
>> Anyone with the link should be able to comment, if you want to comment
>> off-list.
>>
>> The content is attached as PDF, which may be more accessible to some
>> (and is certainly more archivable).
>>
>> Questions to ask:
>>
>> - Is this something worth doing?
>> - If yes: Is this something that should be part of our core docs, a
>> separate doc, part of the permissions doc, or in some "other" category?
>> - Where did I go wrong?
>>
>> Comments welcome!
>>
>> Harald
>>
> 
>

Received on Monday, 30 November 2015 07:55:29 UTC