Re: [Webpush] Versioning aes128gcm-encoded messages
Kit Cambridge <kit@mozilla.com> Mon, 17 April 2017 16:29 UTC
Return-Path: <kcambridge@mozilla.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 D55D61315DE for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.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 wRtJTs5V0z0u for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x231.google.com (mail-qt0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::231]) (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 BAA4512706D for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x231.google.com with SMTP id g60so38623863qtd.3 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nhZNB1uwnyLT7pDUNn/lXXEfKWb1Zk4VXMAf59zad08=; b=AaGCxsnS2ni3jFbw4Y5PNHWWgJwq3OW2Pg3pdK4gAMytjuZL7yK+zS+3N4Ag6VYgBA mynauR3oKAzNAiZUGvJ6sSR9EnM91YOHd5NWmfZgOisex3jnpEEaFmHsbPKgBWAHg2yj BtglAI+8nLkYM5r8a++ukEhf6pw3JdTzqvRSs=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nhZNB1uwnyLT7pDUNn/lXXEfKWb1Zk4VXMAf59zad08=; b=ED6IczGFCkcZfus7HFLzGlYeeavlzEEBtdd0Yv9BIiY3bxREO01pBsIef4yQ29MQan Apdr79mBblav062F3wHVFCWLDvGfKqLJsr8dxa7cmkYGs00uOkAySoR72DPwIoAuvicp Tk3LQQ0gJrap9sVlHTjTVtZlJhuIRTFf9pXL1RFzrPW2cHa+Nd0T90cldLPeWfxFrEJ3 8t0i5wKnuTxDS29NvJek94iI7urMsmC477B764U+lLtHEoHyZMMjXY2ui+SIwSMFnE9V huPjJVV5tlRn84oaW4stzZoJDn62XMW2ITLXaOkPF3gCHAVXlTmtJjy2buEiWUg5hVxC lFjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4gq1kw7pciSE8W2sTInfRU95L2A9PqB3UJ/TUg8VMYjWSKTwVe QkYdSR6+NLJHIuV2lLFHTS26yTaJu7T2qCY=
X-Received: by 10.237.53.236 with SMTP id d41mr10799594qte.158.1492446544964; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.44.116 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnV6Y6pWqWfgxdeeVhuYgxBkipcDOj2bd2RZFBty6VNumg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEeQnYKmJ9-E3JQArvNxbwJuTZvjwRW2W9002sciLNGKJDbKhg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXTAO5OyPR5iMFiO0JLY4MtwNYEn1X9ksOyydbDvPsSTg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+XEteNrHQvDZZch9u=BP1t4x0D24NMgEFZHWN9+_kqH5oeo1g@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnV6Y6pWqWfgxdeeVhuYgxBkipcDOj2bd2RZFBty6VNumg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kit Cambridge <kit@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:28:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEeQnYJzWs=zHdDbyCu5GokQ6iDfBmbevjztMiuKMTmwhJ+N-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: JR Conlin <jrconlin@mozilla.com>, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/8AfckqsrweGvslUcOu0U-4qmtIQ>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Versioning aes128gcm-encoded messages
X-BeenThere: webpush@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 16:29:07 -0000
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > The problem with versioning inline is that it is invisible to HTTP > content negotiation. Granted, that doesn't really make any difference > to the push usage, but a label is visible. If you accept the need to > have more labels, then the inline check is redundant. This sounds good to me. No need to add a version to the payload if we can use the header.
- Re: [Webpush] Versioning aes128gcm-encoded messag… Kit Cambridge
- [Webpush] Versioning aes128gcm-encoded messages Kit Cambridge
- Re: [Webpush] Versioning aes128gcm-encoded messag… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Webpush] Versioning aes128gcm-encoded messag… JR Conlin
- Re: [Webpush] Versioning aes128gcm-encoded messag… Martin Thomson