IdP #78

Closed
robin-raymond opened this Issue May 8, 2014 · 5 comments

Projects

None yet

3 participants

@robin-raymond
Contributor

Need to add related interface(s)/dictionaries

@robin-raymond robin-raymond added the 1.1 label May 8, 2014
@aboba
Contributor
aboba commented Jun 9, 2014

Progress on this issue is awaiting the next WebRTC 1.0 editor's draft, which we presume will include some IdP updates from Martin Thomson.

@aboba
Contributor
aboba commented Jun 20, 2014

Does the following make sense for integration of the idP material in Section 8 of the WebRT 1.0 document?

partial interface RTCDtlsTransport {
void setIdentityProvider (DOMString provider, optional DOMString protocol, optional DOMString username);
void getIdentityAssertion ();
readonly attribute RTCIdentityAssertion? peerIdentity;
attribute EventHandler onidentityresult;
attribute EventHandler onpeeridentity;
attribute EventHandler onidpassertionerror;
attribute EventHandler onidpvalidationerror;
};

@martinthomson
Member

You'll want to have a setIdentityAssertion(DOMString assertion) as well, since you aren't feeding this with setRemoteDescription any more.

With that, you could probably remove some of the indirection.

How about reducing the surface area a little:

partial interface RTCDtlsTransport {
    Promise<DOMString> getIdentityAssertion(DOMString provider, optional DOMString protocol = "default", optional DOMString username);
    // this encapsulates onidentityresult and onidpassertionerror in the promise
    Promise setIdentityAssertion(DOMString assertion);
    // this encapsulates onidentityresult and onidpvalidationerror

    readonly attribute RTCIdentityAssertion? peerIdentity;
};
@robin-raymond
Contributor

@martinthomson I like this API overall. I would make it its own interface though that is constructed from a RTCDtlsTransport to keep the security assertion stuff separate from DTLS, or we could make it like stats interface where "secure" transports could derive from...

@aboba aboba closed this Jul 8, 2014
@robin-raymond robin-raymond pushed a commit to robin-raymond/ortc that referenced this issue Jul 16, 2014
Robin Raymond Added section on WebRTC 1.0 compatibility issues, responding to Issue #…
…66

Added Identity support, as described in Issue #78
Reworked getStats method, as described in Issue #85
Removed ICE restart method described in Issue #93
Addressed CNAME and synchronization context issues described in Issue #94
Fixed WebIDL issues noted in Issue #97
Addressed NITs described in Issue #99
DTLS transport issues fixed as described in Issue #100
ICE transport issues fixed as described in Issue #101
ICE transport controller fixes made as described in Issue #102
Sender and Receiver object fixes made as described in Issue #103
Fixed RTCRtpEncodingParameter default issues described in Issue #104
Fixed 'Big Picture' issues descibed in Issue #105
Fixed RTCRtpParameter default issues described in Issue #106
Added a multi-stream capability, as noted in Issue #108
Removed quality scalability capabilities and parameters, as described in Issue #109
Added scalability examples as requested in Issue #110
Addressed WebRTC 1.0 Data Channel compatibility issue described in Issue #111
Removed header extensions from RTCRtpCodecParameters as described in Issue #113
Addressed RTP/RTCP non-mux issues with IdP as described in Issue #114
Added getParameter methods to RTCRtpSender and RTCRtpReceiver objects, as described in Issue #116
Added layering diagrams as requested in Issue #117
Added a typedef for payload type, as described in Issue #118
Moved onerror from the RTCIceTransport object to the RTCIceListener object as described in Issue #121
Added explanation of Voice Activity Detection (VAD), responding to Issue #129
Clarified the meaning of maxTemporalLayers and maxSpatialLayers, as noted in Issue #130
Added RFC 6051 to the list of header extensions and removed RFC 5450, as noted in Issue #131
Addressed ICE terminology issues, as described in Issue #132
Separated references into Normative and Informative, as noted in Issue #133
6f8216a
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment