IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-12: (with COMMENT)

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Sun, 23 October 2016 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86CBC129443; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 16:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gldL-R9ur4sK; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 16:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22a.google.com (mail-qk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E934F126CD8; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 16:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id n189so215552413qke.0; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 16:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=W+oUfrkEfgn8548z0DXCooyJuGZmSEDO0t54nsn9Mg4=; b=q2ux+bzjUklNPI1/AjOGhYpb65U4E7tjfpcQfkaWfxbNbK9NvcKEFOgZ/0ND4JPC+4 0E1yCiEZL+UUDphZhsSqwDEUgp+ZDyfF0pTndm2IIUAtxkTdK0hGNQDNpf2M+fJBQIfo NTN2KQLSvyraBmR1p3p9RqHibx6+t8SDS9bl5kONeYm+SwJEoW4NgX4LJ/AdMQdiMgyr MIv0oCkNi69nvvLtGqn2jK8skv02SbbdBwfEiC9Uy9s8rN15L6GQ73HtWfc3oRJPQnVt N+dbBlaAJB6v27jW174N/Ih3R3Vi08N6fDXQ6MK9O7tR18TrumbPXd4xHt4rY9zYZBJg Ve8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=W+oUfrkEfgn8548z0DXCooyJuGZmSEDO0t54nsn9Mg4=; b=LDSGwLHgwRgktBXThEb0vwqIYW0SO24sKBvEfFOxKDCok2k3opq5hZLZhChFdpqNDK 016MHdOHpbk4eHLqK8mK7665p8lmIHR30lUiYF71Bh57W4IEJzoKdv+WFzT3ixg4GRl/ YIlfjQCfAqmPxdeokYpaA1VszEANYsEIgTN9P34ykXbqgEU2HFgtmWA/AiJXfvaig4uX yWpjI6V25y2OJVPGTm4C/flm7q2ydb5yhF72JixDl75WWOgU+3PdTKSTCjpij2BhdLS1 HgCraXP+qK4ZMhcdm8252RpH4Ia4lLYAPuNbZ90cOdAjAWGE0N9cv8YMer5Yiix9uTyg Jqsg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcMM3VV03b1xB/lmAugWgy1T/iy/C3R5yj/ziTYOYwCgwdBsqFKyWtgCAJYXSzXqLd1XMdYZ+22JTciyw==
X-Received: by 10.55.99.141 with SMTP id x135mr6617583qkb.147.1477266864977; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 16:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.85.7 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 16:54:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <147715800300.27905.16608260917271960933.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <147715800300.27905.16608260917271960933.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:54:24 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVNJSjU23jN4TUU4Xhk0zdhnkWTDyjgBuK5go_iMB28Ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/16FabmD5AarKhpdh79kN6p9Y3HI>
Cc: draft-ietf-webpush-protocol@ietf.org, Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>, webpush-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: webpush@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of potential IETF work on a web push protocol <webpush.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/webpush>, <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/webpush/>
List-Post: <mailto:webpush@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush>, <mailto:webpush-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:54:27 -0000

On 23 October 2016 at 04:40, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Can 429 be used when no subscription set is specified? (If yes, this
> should be mentioned in section 4).

The document says:

   A push service
   MAY return a 429 (Too Many Requests) status code [RFC6585] to reject
   requests which omit a subscription set.

That's in Section 4.1:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-12#section-4.1
I believe that to be sufficient.

> 4) In general case it is not possible to achieve message reliability
> because a push server is allowed to expire messages after they were
> accepted for delivery due to overload. (Similarly for forced subscription
> expiration.) I don't think the document makes this clear in Section 7.4.

I realize that I dropped this somehow.  I made a PR, but then Brian
corrected me.  The push service is required to provide a negative
acknowledgment if it drops a push message before the TTL period ends:

   The push service MAY cease to retry delivery of the message prior to
   its advertised expiration due to scenarios such as an unresponsive
   user agent or operational constraints.  If the application has
   requested a delivery receipt, then the push service MUST return a 410
   (Gone) response to the application server monitoring the receipt
   subscription.

Section 6.2: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-12#section-6.2

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email