IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Receipt subscription follow-up

Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> Wed, 27 April 2016 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <costin@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 8502612D850 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 07:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 bjHcvYbFmshJ for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 07:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) (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 3EC7612D84D for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 07:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x235.google.com with SMTP id u5so12738708igk.1 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 07:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Cf6N+q0Uuz5wSHGbRKyYUw0BlavAuumwY/KiL14OE8o=; b=kLdzzBchBGvhlaYb+EKgjID7U+KqnfZ8hV7wghPhLVZQhXZaOzMeXUAFlKd2L3qaKs tS1w3tRQdvahIWBUg3c7p3s9VrFu2VY+tejOR12zo+zLJmVYQwOuq137VcqW6bZnj8zr 6KQoUv6UH8apD/nwlkREoPKs/unmTce5vvLNHIzwstWiylJ91zwbwyIxg0VEtDWv9NQZ Rngs025ZdI2CRbr0lMMtqca/X7duEzlzqtu+r4kbGlw/tsK/nwMUlgy3S6H64NSZRwZK tG9Q9Gcfbo6OoFE/5aFdA+V5Z7yyxQ5KQ5xabAoNN7UvejzBph0zY1YnS94r9naKjM57 CXkg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Cf6N+q0Uuz5wSHGbRKyYUw0BlavAuumwY/KiL14OE8o=; b=LZYUSPZjHJ/lNTSJHrduOoLrL3KGg0N92MzTuHaaR5ICtlQ8nm0KGq79eA4nQcF02M H8UDi1dtEHenqJO76Q6xTPo6nIKWbj91/HZaiT5NtIYRlisX6W/Ax+v9SfYV4gljhdcY oZb1L3sdeIaPe+UxIB1edYEdxRU2dOMUvCPE32j0PKsiu7uNzWCz1PC/ty3wCBHMQ9ws 7BFiSPJ3VUFY97PvzIZtYuCQHx+hHOsvclc69+GlbYEvLS8i3OzEmCq3GtjpvPJbFfdG 4jiVmP5bjndG0lvrL0bfsQvhvkJ/SNCJ8Eke9eibYj4vRZumzTJOEqHVhTH7fwHVQuUE f6lA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXVIxbb+4cCBCwS26g/gcFNZu51c5B/04ZSJ5Jc6maKqipJw3IDyuYUL8SqGQ1KmwLqDRM3ez5AzZQ5wg==
X-Received: by 10.50.167.2 with SMTP id zk2mr11305814igb.2.1461768642579; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 07:50:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABkgnnXKDZvLWxkhFP0R4jW=ZyFwqiqQREFA5BFKH9i4PQCmyA@mail.gmail.com> <CO2PR03MB24076724ECF95BDBB9B83E0F83640@CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAP8-Fqk8p1HkbJkB60UoE=jeQPa9CKorgc8kqSF7sUMS3FcAfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnU_jnSuUX7TC+qy2SwteU1tW9DEAb0uoHmhOcYNQaYuvw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-Fqkuubb7=ndSCj2=A4-s3TAEwCp1UgELgfO-SUPf3-FpYg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWvaz0QqqN0wApQqL02AHpcsNViuKyUV0cESWqWm0CZ3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWvaz0QqqN0wApQqL02AHpcsNViuKyUV0cESWqWm0CZ3Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 14:50:33 +0000
Message-ID: <CAP8-Fqm6_jL2tx-BQ77pXdyRAwXOJGK1r4ZHhKCHh2a+6bMRtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=485b393aad0faf5386053178884f
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/3kuK7ZPQHZuoIFwlNinns_JtfPU>
Cc: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Receipt subscription follow-up
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: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 14:50:44 -0000

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:41 AM Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 28 April 2016 at 00:35, Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How does the HTTP/2 flow control window apply to push promises ?
>
> It might not have any effect given that flow control only affects
> payloads and there isn't likely to be a payload.
>

That was my understanding as well - TCP window may help a bit, but there is
little feedback for load balancing, and quite tricky to use it right by AS.



>
> I agree that the DELETE response is redundant, but it's not an
> inordinate burden.
>

Agreed - it does affect the throughput, but more connections can handle
this.

Costin

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email