W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > August 2016

Re: Permissions store

From: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 09:00:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CANh-dXnSO1P1b5bfv08w51jRfx4tYaNevGDY1RLx_Rn6K8odJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: WebAppSec WG <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@mozilla.com>, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mlamouri@google.com>, Ben Wells <benwells@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Raymes Khoury <raymes@google.com>
Thanks Anne.

For context, the minutes for the previous meeting on this are at
https://www.w3.org/2016/06/08-webappsec-minutes.html.

As one of the Permissions editors, I'd like to request that, if this
discussion decides to change the model, y'all should produce a
document that describes it in a more contained form than an email
thread, and then I'll edit that into the spec. Or a PR would be fine
if you're ambitious. You could base a model on my previous attempts at
https://github.com/w3c/permissions/pull/95 and
https://github.com/w3c/permissions/pull/96, or build your own.

Thanks,
Jeffrey

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> Apparently the latest agreement for the Permissions specification is
> that each permission has a "get" and "request" API and the details of
> those operations are up to the user agent.
>
> That does not seem great.
>
> I understand that we might want to vary on the key and even leave some
> things user-agent defined. But I think we want all permissions to be
> at least keyed by origin. And some permissions, such as storage,
> should only be keyed by origin and not some additional bits that are
> up to the user agent.
>
> (Of course, if user agents provide ways to have multiple user agents
> in a user agent, as with Firefox Container Tabs, that would be an
> additional part to the key. As would private browsing mode, but
> nothing else that is keyed by origin is concerned with those modes, so
> we shouldn't be concerned with it here either, until we expose
> features that make those modes visible to the web.)
>
> So I'd like to revisit that agreement and actually get us to clearly
> specify the store, including the bits that are user-agent defined,
> which is likely something that is decided upon on a per-API basis. The
> scope for persistent storage is not necessarily applicable to sharing
> the camera, but leaving both openended is not a good solution either.
>
> (It also seems rather bogus architecturally to leave such an important
> subsystem entirely up to the user agent and not describe its details.
> That will surely bite us later on.)
>
>
> --
> https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2016 16:01:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:21 UTC