IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Alternate/fallback mechanism for receiving

Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> Sun, 21 February 2016 07:48 UTC

Return-Path: <costin@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 9F1281B3529 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 23:48:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, 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 ovRhzZ6a-m4r for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 23:48:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x232.google.com (mail-oi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (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 D34C91B3528 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 23:48:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id x21so37713927oix.2 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 23:48:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=OHTYVZPiUlKNgh0bl3gLtIzX24X+gsJHvbLy5R3Ji7U=; b=rLx6ajZiGrLyMv/Nv/MoVJfN0QvRBhV7XVHPRfRfCyyhKdvzhn7YnSIr0FAaAhkz0N QDa/ask2YoaRbJDgs00I+hdIRQRm6vNagUNdo4tnyfnTqyrGLckfG9zeBmzxzPeSTfOv eNalEIhcH73imhcaquSwD4n/xtrI8frEYj7wUeHjkRY3E8jt4Bs7bR4AO52N9Jz8lV9/ pO9g9oRLkRZF5yD/oLW5GB91nbRFvy4ORM4pGoV+38kkBRPXWtr3yxS3p29LCpv7+0BK +fWm5fzYnV4NycUMIBIKA5BagNQHOL2kIYeys9C9idd5Sk74vwfGWRJhzzhqaZPxt2RV MDgw==
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OHTYVZPiUlKNgh0bl3gLtIzX24X+gsJHvbLy5R3Ji7U=; b=YIDtoYmWobHmnBfM6sDoxdDj7sQMpONN8r5l57tSlkGcwAxN/deYUKaQG7c4cRKNR1 xMzFaOpifkyYnB2lwUoll9SenybAu1EHlHNQuHf3YxtI2mjxWVBVjOH47dkcPf3FU8O/ lLu8iZ6G74fGfyuSV6IdUt/EG+M+RvHfMQq5idHsPthREXolyr6473xZtCJrdCAu9Vd1 T2Oq8pRcd7tNc+N3B1DBZhmyBrSSxJk7f5U81bqAodh/vsV56cGkXZNsJ6gNa9auerek dZLJclOViX71bWnYMds/+cVxgjyhYu4lbemPfaRppEgavMWiZKb3JJyS8oeAsHCqg2hF dzVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSSG0xwm1A+qubOS63TAFrjpT9yNao/Kia7PCc32k6hcG8XeJqgsUuGpOyF7VsVZUwXW2KCC19u0rr8SQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.49.88 with SMTP id x85mr15922394oix.123.1456040881299; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 23:48:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.75.35 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 23:48:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVaSrWowBn929FXQbGtP+krjf1SeJ5UpfD18Jp+FqTbqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP8-Fq=TYTzAVtt7P+bsQ78R=LWwvhPRaTJc=7GXOD06ByKdFw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWaPxnHX9pvhep24sajk+grUJXwxk8wt1jfreZM9fvocQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-FqkWa7xm4tdT+U-mBOVjU1hAeGwYTt3WKWLa1X6dGr9sbA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVaSrWowBn929FXQbGtP+krjf1SeJ5UpfD18Jp+FqTbqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 23:48:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP8-Fq=XKT8ybmXJ5g9U_HjQABoe1gaFKzWO4g9veCXt7k_=UQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113bd248822834052c42ef10
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/A8bOKWs0gAU-28xCuSiceLNFINw>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Alternate/fallback mechanism for receiving
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: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 07:48:03 -0000

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 20 February 2016 at 19:22, Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Does anyone have a survey of platforms and APIs supporting push promises
> ?
>
> Firefox has an API, though that is still pretty-much internal.
>
> nghttp2 has an API:
>
> https://www.nghttp2.org/documentation/types.html#c.nghttp2_on_begin_headers_callback
>
> I'm not opposed to someone defining a fallback, but I think that it
> would be better written as a separate document, because it isn't as
> simple to do as what you describe by a long stretch.
>

Push message delivery is defined as 'http' - and that's what most
developers will
do.

I'm ok with a separate document - and my main concern is delivery receipts,
since
that's the only point AS developers are required to use low level http2
APIs.
Most implementations I found so far are low level, similar with nghttp2 -
or 'pretty-much internal'.

Getting receipts is a GET request - it seems natural to return the receipts
as body if promises are
not available - json or any other format would be fine too.

Costin

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email