Re: [Webpush] Use Case related to subscription sets

Brian Raymor <> Mon, 23 November 2015 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23D31B34E5 for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:47:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Eces0w2WWHJr for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:47:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:776]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB1131B34EE for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:47:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=BISTdtVghC8T5P8wczzR1BPetI6TwBC0XOCVlFHhA/U=; b=itQeE7aA8M/i6gViuyexS/pylDXs5wmp1v2Zhdc/M7Sfz11T8OZ8szO5AWIWSZi5KdrAEk5nhdKkjFdG46Q2ct1DWkizGl2KolWpqjZ98mUIJ+LSIdk/fEpAd87Z9wu9hfcyR1IacfHbIEeekOpx9L1drMPp1g2YQD+X2qjM/rA=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.331.20; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:46:48 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0331.019; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:46:48 +0000
From: Brian Raymor <>
To: Martin Thomson <>, Benjamin Bangert <>
Thread-Topic: [Webpush] Use Case related to subscription sets
Thread-Index: AQHRIeqmRM5eVbt/pk6X9PcfmrGbf56iF+eAgAKj+YCAAGUkgIAADnDwgAQ3KYCAAH8PgIAADLUAgAAosSA=
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:46:48 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR0301MB0648; 5:dlWir77pgh1Fzj28kuwVaMZFk00lZFqwbO0lRbTwlcfPOusqXd+rwC2dW5/0XlyX+IhjRS9g+8abrcdQy80eRD2AJOkHC0kyqg8nK7fcFvN2IXQcDZ6kWmUqyv0Ym1cj0NSs1VuogumbzNrT7MoKnA==; 24:6Npt1+GargxAMj8/OzYX+X8XtH4omWXIn16F4FdbfNltvtNue4JbcG3dgKDHCdm80o/xG0VP49mClR6x55zlhFkpRVRKuJA8XHKCJIf8z84=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(42140001); SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0648;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425024)(601004)(2401047)(520078)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(61426024)(61427024); SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0648; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0648;
x-forefront-prvs: 07697999E6
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(52604005)(199003)(189002)(99286002)(101416001)(93886004)(106356001)(106116001)(54356999)(33656002)(5007970100001)(5008740100001)(76576001)(5005710100001)(10090500001)(76176999)(66066001)(97736004)(2950100001)(105586002)(10290500002)(77096005)(15975445007)(5001960100002)(8990500004)(5004730100002)(10400500002)(189998001)(11100500001)(92566002)(86362001)(102836003)(19580395003)(6116002)(5002640100001)(40100003)(3846002)(5003600100002)(2900100001)(5001770100001)(586003)(87936001)(81156007)(50986999)(122556002)(74316001)(86612001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0648;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 Nov 2015 21:46:48.1163 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0301MB0648
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, =?utf-8?B?SGVydsOpIFJ1ZWxsYW4=?= <>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Use Case related to subscription sets
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of potential IETF work on a web push protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:47:13 -0000

> An explicit link between subscriptions isn't that hard to do.  I've
> created a pull request that illustrates how simple it would be to
> accommodate Hervé's request.


Thanks for creating the pull request, Martin. I've added specific comments there.

The question is whether the WG prefers "user agent decides" - which is the case
where the push service advertises the availability of sets in its response to
the first subscription request and the user agent can then decide whether to
pass the push:set with subsequent subscription requests for aggregation. This is
definitely a very flexible approach although with a  few more moving parts.

In previous discussions, one of the concerns about "user agent decides" is what
happens if a push service strongly wants to require aggregation, but the user agent
fails to include the advertised push:set with its subsequent subscription requests?
This was one of the motivations for the current approach of "push service decides".

Perhaps the combination of "user agent decides" with "push service *encourages*"
by limiting concurrent HTTP/2 streams is the potential compromise.