IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Webpush] Voluntary Application Server Identification -02

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 01 February 2016 01:56 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B051A87E6 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:56:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 SpUVUAWTRPMd for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c]) (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 CE3441A87E4 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:56:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 9so62842499iom.1 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:56:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=6MoUj72d71t+Aa2cZ/ZznE2eQZv4efNm6DvPRpSA37U=; b=mEMrRXnoyQ4CVMuDBH6AaPE37H96SDsniqQwxSv870wj08ncTrwTDRidO5XRdWx8b5 bkhfQEJqIfSzThGCDSIIBJykBNR/DrAA3yethHHRk2lOjdgfxMZVr7+fQUWwoj7PvnAF nAKbMjwvHNZFx7azbqZq17LucJCJYzeKSYdAj6q/JnFQ3dAG7K7j3s/yu/7DsW8cWqQ6 QbPWpDQ/1RJUY3uCrcJ9IaHlBcM/g0Dr4KbxziexfbbOebuX4mdU6AeU0e4Mi4BzyOTI S5d5M7/sQrIPBxqhik0ZanJS35G3aszhMAdFCmQNdTxEeOshSTpngeDMTrbIZhgF9/Un sUdw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=6MoUj72d71t+Aa2cZ/ZznE2eQZv4efNm6DvPRpSA37U=; b=XhzgiOM9z91F7q4iEvIQKYwDyeg9WIxus/Bi79+AAknrD3Dvg5Vjd8hWWiDFSg6eOe GXw6EZRTS/Vsj0rdZJ2RkSmuaIDOxXiabEOVCwQPsY6Iw8o4t5UaHtEr6gXXjLM9ow/T fqOrFezXJT+mScg42JkaQWEeCUO/ZW5Y96CDViqP0i9/t5diPKxmUC1VBEGIC6EwjTO9 hSrhT4/bUnKS27IoLuuK/7EDvbTK0h+wrIMwBIJlAM2cyxdoP7bXhc9Bh4PDPeJqy8A4 K6vw322sHTJP4mHnK5lj5bzUjFkFsKCABa2E5dwIpznrL6WAap7D7rw2Slc5JVR3ZeU1 cWVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQZ/uYX7VAhvWWqQeUHjKpfSKdAvYNWY1OOw9gM49oGlR2/f5XjzVAVhdm1siHwu/8rQPKN01XQk14n9g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.33.14 with SMTP id h14mr18995528ioh.108.1454291781169; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:56:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.149.130 with HTTP; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:56:21 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 12:56:21 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXMA1do2jLoNuALz5V+416RELu=FWyEj8nExC+xn3vnpw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/8PqVhR5KUvQ0RydTvowKLCJFajY>
Subject: [Webpush] Voluntary Application Server Identification -02
X-BeenThere: webpush@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 01 Feb 2016 01:56:23 -0000

I have just posted a new version of the draft, taking the recent
feedback from discussions into account.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-webpush-vapid-02

This includes only the JWT option, with a lot more of the details
fleshed out.  I've implemented it in order to create the example, and
that is dead simple to do.

I think that this is the answer we want for issue 44 [44].  Does the
group agree? Is this worth adopting?

[44] https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/44

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email