On 2015-04-07 07:07, Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
Hi Frederick,

The implementations I am aware of are:
* Mozilla FFOS: There is an ongoing implementation of the UDP API. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=745283
* Crosswalk: An experimental implementation of the old, non-stream-based 
version. See https://crosswalk-project.org/documentation/apis/web_apis.html

If it had 2 fairly significant implementations, that can be an argument for keeping it in a WG rather than moving it to a Community Group (where it doesn't need 2) (I think that may have been what the question was about.)

Crosswalk has an experimental implementation of a previous version that was fairly different. We (Intel) have quit the SysApps WG and think it should have closed when the Charter expired.
https://crosswalk-project.org/documentation/apis/web_apis.html

Mozilla looks like they have their own, different API
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/TCPSocket




There is no public web page with this information.

BR
   Claes



Claes Nilsson
Master Engineer - Web Research
Advanced Application Lab, Technology

Sony Mobile Communications
Tel: +46 70 55 66 878
claes1.nils...@sonymobile.com

sonymobile.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:w...@fjhirsch.com]
Sent: den 7 april 2015 13:53
To: Nilsson, Claes1
Cc: public-sysa...@w3.org; public-webapps; Device APIs Working Group;
Domenic Denicola; slightly...@chromium.org; yass...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [W3C TCP and UDP Socket API]: Status and home for this
specification

Lastly, if there is a decision to continue to work on this API I can
remain as main editor. However, I can currently not commit to more
extensive tasks such as implementation and test cases.

Claes

Do you have information on W3C members committed to implementation &
test cases going forward? This might be useful before considering venue
for the work and detailed issues. (Is there a public web page with
information on current implementations?)

thanks

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

www.fjhirsch.com
@fjhirsch



On Apr 1, 2015, at 5:22 AM, Nilsson, Claes1
<claes1.nils...@sonymobile.com> wrote:
Hi all,

Related to the recent mail thread about the SysApps WG and its
deliverables I would like to make a report of the status of the TCP and
UDP Socket API, http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/tcp-udp-sockets/.
Note that this specification is still being worked on. Latest merged
PR was March 30. I think it is time for a new Public Working Draft.
This API is used to send and receive data over the network using TCP
or UDP.
Examples of use cases for the API are:
        • An email client which communicates with SMTP, POP3 and
IMAP servers
        • An irc client which communicates with irc servers
        • Implementing an ssh app
        • Communicating with existing consumer hardware, like
internet connected TVs
        • Game servers
        • Peer-to-peer applications
        • Local network multicast service discovery, e.g. UPnP/SSDP
and mDNS
The TCP and UDP Socket API is a phase 1 deliverable of the SysApps WG.
SysApps was originally chartered to provide a runtime and security
model so that it would be possible to open up sensitive APIs to SysApps
enabled runtimes. Accordingly, it was assumed that the TCP and UDP
Socket API would be exposed to such a “trusted runtime”. Looking at
existing TCP and UDP Socket APIs they are implemented in proprietary
web runtimes, FFOS and Chrome, which provide a security model for
installed packaged web runtimes.
Today we can conclude that it has not been possible to standardize a
runtime and security model in SysApps. However, there still seems to be
an interest in the TCP and UDP Socket API, at least from individuals at
Google and Mozilla. For example, there has been extensive work,
supported by Google, to adapt this API to the Streams API specification,
https://streams.spec.whatwg.org/.
To meet the issue that we don’t have a standardized secure “web
system applications” runtime and that the current open web browser
sandbox is not secure enough for this kind of API (but the security
features are evolving through the Web Application Security Working
Group) I recently added “permission methods”, partly inspired by the
W3C Push API. A webapp could for example request permission to create a
TCP connection to a certain host. The ambition is to isolate the
permission system from the socket interfaces specifications and the
manner in which permission to use this API is given differs depending
on the type of web runtime the API is implemented in. For example, a
web runtime for secure installed web applications may be able to open
up this API so that no explicit user content is needed, while an
implementation in a web browser may use a combination of web security
mechanisms, such as secure transport (https:), content security
policies (CSP), signed manifest, certificate pinning, and user consent
to open up the API.
If SysApps WG is closed and the scope of W3C is limited to APIs that
could be exposed the “normal browser context” (which is evolving, once
again referring to Web Apps Sec WG) a new home for this API could be
the Device API WG. A Community Group, similar to what we have for Web
Bluetooth and NFC, would also be a possibility.
WDYT?

Lastly, if there is a decision to continue to work on this API I can
remain as main editor. However, I can currently not commit to more
extensive tasks such as implementation and test cases.
Best regards
   Claes


Claes Nilsson
Master Engineer - Web Research
Advanced Application Lab, Technology

Sony Mobile Communications
Tel: +46 70 55 66 878
claes1.nils...@sonymobile.com

sonymobile.com

<image003.png>


Reply via email to