Re: [Webpush] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-webpush-encryption-08: (with COMMENT)

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 16 August 2017 00:04 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@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 6126E13244A; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, 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 8LqGg-_dqxG2; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22e.google.com (mail-it0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22e]) (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 A2C3B132435; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id m34so11003354iti.1; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BGTfInT/IREdmipskIiMHOi7AxxlfiknrRE5264Krhc=; b=VA2KekIONCBfeGXn4G/926nImhYuvMMQdO/KsZ9010oO7gWD6hAXlae1m8tR+6K3o3 aXhtpo5SbZrOjQQhgh0s0KEHJibGJN+hcQmjpJH5SFGhZOG1eJrVIBkvjcdjpfMHwvAX DKA7hQlIVpgIDhZxykSEiV6gLzdwdIJ7ZSA+Hk0pY9UQNg+/9pRiUUc3z5bAnvD2cLZ7 Bm98N8LEIhuH/Ha8RGvdSdka2muiXkoyavNljjwSFl3H/pWfGx/skfNbMu19DYqdOfRn hU0eQUPhrC86vi1YiQay9RZ8YYCEiznB5B+OiZW+vHh5AUn6zBCe+p2oEuInb7KGnMtW 5sqw==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BGTfInT/IREdmipskIiMHOi7AxxlfiknrRE5264Krhc=; b=MAb0nBbZF6ravVjNclm+5SoSwBw7hjrCrjLkwwOvjYsfyJACbSsDCZYeO9+jSUm6/F hJBWjmm+Wm5X7T/UQodObwyhISI4QRWSba/c49p7wHlUIskmMXS1ucZcWxhHylmSjxFB AJL6jMy6QZ/Isxb6jeSPC7V2pYsmNIdm49QaPBQbeMSgpPkut+GkMrwolnXkxDuh+wCf Yi6wZ5oHwKwXHNm5teazQhab0fg2wGiiuzeMRGNP8N4M2L3XGmHjSy6OAev0m9dqayVo lqWO96n4rNcniwLMqmHN5JVz96GZGnnpbRzNrImGFeF7AKjpCioBCu6sNk5NwqtwAQiU NONQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5htk29LPp/Vs/QVWbSkcU6jWOq8pxQP4HJ16PRT+vOSw4iNZUgZ o5pTVx+FQPW/zvQj7kbZ4ckJGgMosg==
X-Received: by 10.36.107.68 with SMTP id v65mr324939itc.129.1502841830964; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.164.42 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <150281372252.21061.13568867134437858167.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <150281372252.21061.13568867134437858167.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:03:50 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVHEnWz_T0Y_z+AurgVywxw6vtcKQx1mGSdRFFyy29PqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-webpush-encryption@ietf.org, Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org>, webpush-chairs@ietf.org, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/ATWff4oQWLqFivvvcMpWGsjWdKE>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-webpush-encryption-08: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 00:04:00 -0000

On 16 August 2017 at 02:15, Spencer Dawkins
<spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
> I found “for efficiency reasons” in this text
>
>   For efficiency reasons, multiple users of Web Push often share a
>    central agent that aggregates push functionality.
>
> To be so broad that I wasn’t sure what you were telling the reader. Are there
> any specific efficiencies that you could call out, so that we’d better
> understand why central agents are used? And if that’s already written down
> someplace, adding a pointer would be even better.

It's engineering efficiency more than anything else.  On mobile
platforms, this is the platform; on browsers, the browser.  If I
remove the "for efficiency reasons" clause, I don't think we lose
anything.

> I’m curious about algorithm agility, but I’m not the person to ask that
> question ...

It's a common question.  Common enough that I'll add some text and
avoid future occurrences.

We have deployment experience with this already.  We deployed an
earlier version, then had to change it a few times.  So we know how to
do this.  The User Agent tells the application what content codings it
likes.  The W3C spec has a supportedContentEncodings parameter on the
PushManager interface that does this
(https://w3c.github.io/push-api/#pushmanager-interface).

For you:
  https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-encryption/pull/18