IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Replace term 'Application server'

Idel Pivnitskiy <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.com> Thu, 02 June 2016 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <idel.pivnitskiy@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 5140B12D8CE for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:56:45 -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 10WGo_LphiRC for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22a.google.com (mail-io0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::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 DF94512D8C9 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id t40so59116887ioi.0 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:56:42 -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=JaU35OjaMIoXskaIoIfmMrl53OhqPcq60XLI4+vy3bA=; b=XDJ8XQrCM5k7LrUbKc1i0+DUmQleEb4ace6Fe7SK+xJb1x/aNhAMYoUCf+awK8a97Y rNl1DToooxPE+Q0W2XmlnHhluL2ajjKWll+iOFZ5v2AiePrtLRGcHGnEU8PROIezxDCA 7uf/l6wWJBAes/7mKDGbth7VykvfYhpbwsJRmOe84wbzDd60A+87GO7Zu1mtF1oBU61Z BZryYdVCblFk0hAkPL74rli2ANaAN8bHc7ntTGWAIig036eAuHdn0KkimnCYvHHnoAER cv1hrWIygXykfejZaDb+4v2vD2XcEYRLUq8ufaqEOPKIwD1Fk/zVtnt0tFdGr3tN0Yj2 JsFA==
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=JaU35OjaMIoXskaIoIfmMrl53OhqPcq60XLI4+vy3bA=; b=KtSlhUwb5osfg+pLnVHxVwAw79J7X1+R+3nGuOrBE9IKjnYVzcllhfbJhWR59dWSzF +UdmdN5hJpcOoASJHRtobO9mx/avg/a1OMLV7DYGXgxnPpLJlimjFQc/1WXswlhwSBKT tpVI2L+eFKy9lXmtqCEX4AIbQypl3YOpoI3ReUzPwFGaqbHWvq/YKAOjDD9a4eRGOcHw dwkdnPMKi+n5n12KefAzGlqbw5xgu23Iow81ByuNbd/A/+ffrvy3Lf5kLzJihqQqLPt/ HCeqj7XgqiRN1y3vkPBX5MHAPZhhRzmlWJWNTZ727Uy7RA0rG02Z08RVeSHFk/AzVPck D7hw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tInykp4l7TgZa+0kxa+9GH63rSF175P7oWWwXvH0w2cKKbNURqGG0WfBvqUfNYwQ+k1A+4Onn93fyb+Qw==
X-Received: by 10.107.62.196 with SMTP id l187mr1065304ioa.185.1464904602242; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.36.43.197 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP8-FqnkeJ8fk88ig+nQcz0xV46F-Cu2pf6LfoWbVcTESMCcAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN+BUJp8WqDDqeAZdDjxPNF-+2pwF1ossCP3zMraKbgxE8Oq6A@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-FqnkeJ8fk88ig+nQcz0xV46F-Cu2pf6LfoWbVcTESMCcAg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Idel Pivnitskiy <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 00:56:02 +0300
Message-ID: <CAN+BUJokkZ-qZaD_25+ZR7T=6Po56rOJi6V=dgkbSbnvHrJSPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c061062726826053452ae6c
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/9BBHTnEckOVkG9VgH9BFc9Mh_Zg>
Cc: webpush@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Replace term 'Application server'
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: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 21:56:45 -0000

Hi Costin,

Agree with you. Thanks for the explanation.

Idel
--
Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy>
GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy>

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> wrote:

> M2M is a bit more complicated due to authentication and secrecy of push
> endpoint.
>
> Some PS will require senders to authenticate with VAPID - while others
> will rely only on the
> fact that AS can keep the push endpoint secret. In M2M it is very hard to
> keep the
> endpoints and authenticator secret - and impossible to keep the sender
> private key secret.
>
> However it is possible to extend the protocol for M2M, with a future draft
> - there
> are several ways. The cleanest change (IMHO) is to relax the requirement
> of a single
> subscription per service worker - in a M2M case there are multiple
> senders, and
> each will need either a different endpoint/keys ( sharing the
> authenticator and encryption
> keys among multiple devices defeats their purpose ), and each sender will
> have a separate
> VAPID key that will need to be authorized. There are other options as
> well, but I think it
> is cleaner to handle this in a separate document.
>
> Costin
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:33 AM Idel Pivnitskiy <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Agree with Peter, that server side is not needed for communication:
>>
>> Nothing precludes an application from not needing a server side at all. I
>>> don't think we should change the term, but perhaps we can consider
>>> slightly rephrasing the definition as:
>>>
>>> "The component of an application that *usually* runs on a server and
>>> requests the delivery of a push message."
>>>
>>
>> Relevant commit:
>> https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/90/commits/e0222007081cbf4c96e7c285d54154840d374b6d
>>
>> According to the rapid growth of IoT devices, WebPush protocol could get
>> a popularity for power efficient M2M communications. In this case would be
>> better not to fix client-server architecture/terms and use something like
>> sender/receiver (or something similar) instead of AS/UA.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Idel Pivnitskiy
>> --
>> Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy>
>> GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Webpush mailing list
>> Webpush@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush
>>
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email