IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> Mon, 17 October 2016 07:03 UTC

Return-Path: <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.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 15893129569; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 00:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.022
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.022 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.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 SVwbPoo-4y5k; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 00:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0137.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E450C1294FB; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 00:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=9ff8HOWoarM5lRJPBVf0rhyltW3XnhC+DSdY0J6wV58=; b=FSoyv+87zlxX3BsNzmhqbePct/Vj6rzxhlS5Qg24I4zPhdNaFSg2oC3OIfhzZgsTyVBsGYRbv/PmTUXYQdajc/UJ4qL1aHH/5NnSpvwlefPwKV/keL3ZMoNiKqSO45R7Asrp+Zpq9jVzvqKKLMFxPjxS6aF14pa4CryLSnZk4po=
Received: from CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.167.8.6) by CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.167.8.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.659.11; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:03:19 +0000
Received: from CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.8.6]) by CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.8.6]) with mapi id 15.01.0659.025; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:03:19 +0000
From: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHSJiwPJMwjYoplfkyn6wgWsrTwWqCoSZiggAPy/pA=
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:03:19 +0000
Message-ID: <CY1PR03MB2380D52D2AA9CC7D60EA5FA883D00@CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CY1PR03MB238089D350CD6A78DB9E80BE83DF0@CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <5816348f-015a-beca-a5e6-3883fff02aab@cs.tcd.ie> <CY1PR03MB2380AE2A057528E2B17FA0B083DF0@CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR03MB2380AE2A057528E2B17FA0B083DF0@CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [174.61.159.182]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: fb83e78d-28c4-474b-88ed-08d3f65bad29
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR03MB2380; 7:5ama52CuztzuCmOQUjVQnI2hv3pT65hAMwhYs4WE10VwytKwTh0f2sVaaATcY6MUtmQjkPd7hypY08XEG05HojeRwett5Cy/f8veJsFaBLZdqLdF1HpCIZvkmSeXA2f2Kb1XdWl9l58VQTFBMKhh5KDXG84MN3YbJ4CBjUc6BKPIqejlDhCg5AX5u/VJj5T7SgVqw1HKtHL+PYyjkunp6qEkMBKiikkSGIU7Np2inyBQUqGeIzKZxVCCZ2r/f748jmV2kJqcPJ2PmW+bre6WPfiznkLOCBOqanvHD/uaPcmgjxaf2iTAFYZ2NreczqBdZiDGVvR3+QEDI87EpxredLwpB/iCaDoYNxV6e7UsbqKF16N67wuI/6J5w3VAB2+N
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR03MB2380;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY1PR03MB2380515036BC8EC398EDBE2083D00@CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863)(166708455590820);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:CY1PR03MB2380; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR03MB2380;
x-forefront-prvs: 0098BA6C6C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(199003)(189002)(97736004)(2900100001)(106116001)(102836003)(3846002)(6116002)(86612001)(87936001)(10400500002)(7846002)(5005710100001)(10090500001)(8936002)(122556002)(77096005)(19580395003)(5002640100001)(81166006)(5660300001)(305945005)(86362001)(15975445007)(9686002)(81156014)(230783001)(74316002)(3280700002)(7736002)(8676002)(3660700001)(5001770100001)(76576001)(76176999)(54356999)(2906002)(2950100002)(189998001)(11100500001)(7696004)(8990500004)(33656002)(92566002)(66066001)(68736007)(50986999)(10290500002)(586003)(106356001)(105586002)(99286002)(101416001)(4326007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR03MB2380; H:CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Oct 2016 07:03:19.4767 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR03MB2380
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/9vnv9QeWIM29E4-Zba3LNAHuW2Q>
Cc: "draft-ietf-webpush-protocol@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-webpush-protocol@ietf.org>, Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>, "webpush-chairs@ietf.org" <webpush-chairs@ietf.org>, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:03:23 -0000

Correcting a mail bounce. Apologies for duplicates.

Take two.

> So what's not clear to me is how webpush works with the SOP
> and whether there's anything more that needs to be said about
> that in the document. For example, you sensibly recommend
> running the push service on port 1001 but none of the examples
> mention that port in the Host or :authority values shown.
> This may all be clear to someone who's very familiar with
> alt-svc though, (but it wasn't clear to me:-), which might
> be fine, but I'm not sure. As an example, is the application
> that is pushing the messages required to know that the
> push service is or is not using port 1001?

I've added a clarification to Section 1.1 regarding the examples in the
document - outlining the minor changes required if Alt-Svc was in play:

https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/141/files

The small difference is the inclusion of the Alt-Used header field in the user agent 
requests to the push service. No other changes (such as URLs) are required which 
matches the description in RFC7838: '...  in general, they are not visible to
the software "above" the access mechanism. ' The "routing" is transparently
managed in the HTTP stack based on my understanding. 

Similarly, the application server is NOT required to know that the push service and
user agent are using port 1001. 

...Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email