W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > June 2013

Re: Draft text for identity-bound streams

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:34:48 +0200
Message-ID: <51B97618.7070908@alvestrand.no>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 06/13/2013 08:09 AM, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK wrote:
> On 2013-06-12 19:00, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 12 June 2013 03:12, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK
>> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>> * talking about isolated MediaStreams - splitting it down on Tracks 
>>> would be
>>> to confusing
>> I disagree.  This all comes down to tracks.
> Perhaps it does. But then we need to define how a MediaStream with a 
> mix of isolated and non-isolated tracks (or 
> peerIdentified/non-peerIdentified tracks) is defined - since that is 
> what you deal with when attaching to PeerConnection's, media elements 
> etc. Certainly doable.
> But, at least to me, the use of isolated MediaStreamTrack's is 
> unclear. I assume the purpose is to allow the UA to inform the user 
> that this app only has isolated access to media, is that right?

I think the purpose is to cause attempts to get at the media 
(screenshots, recording) to fail, so that (for instance) an injected 
script on a page that attempts to steal your microphone output will fail 
to do so.

> Could you elaborate a bit on the thinking?

I think both the important actions on streams (adding to a MediaElement 
and adding to a PeerConnection) are dependent on the isolation status of 
the elements being consistent.

Would it make sense to say that a MediaStreamTrack with noaccess=true or 
peerIdentity=<something> could only be added to a MediaStream where all 
the other tracks were either non-isolated or had the same isolation state?
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 07:35:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:33 UTC