IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] 202 (Accepted) and simplifying acknowledgements

Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> Sat, 20 February 2016 00:52 UTC

Return-Path: <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.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 C61701B35D2 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:52:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 1F6phmXuHpoy for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0118.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D2711B3598 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 16:52:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=INXO6zaMzCnwBZ4VAZoLUsBbCkTY0Sd8eVcGvebuOZg=; b=FU7r7t3NMPk5tQNnUEjAf1fSiEyjRJAvo10m2Kl7P7m5DGwsehPtpJS7wfjs7Vi79G5I7NryGz7c6oZ5lJho4zOJp2DsKN1ex5ufcfdijSsVSWBKbmmLdkG+9eRLTj0dfe1R4wsxSdySIbugHjJNpu7JVrl8ls10JjTt9dANL/A=
Received: from BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.160.63.14) by BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.160.63.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.409.15; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:52:28 +0000
Received: from BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.63.14]) by BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.63.14]) with mapi id 15.01.0409.017; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:52:28 +0000
From: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Webpush] 202 (Accepted) and simplifying acknowledgements
Thread-Index: AdFrSF8gtTEETI3TT4mdvlYA58NVcwAKFmWAAABgEPA=
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:52:28 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR0301MB0647B99B681C7C5DA10D998B83A10@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BY2PR0301MB06475638E9DE5D87782E71C783A00@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnU_oxOJX3TMY2EpfZS7NSwfhteWA2Tzh=L_gw1RNFWoLQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnU_oxOJX3TMY2EpfZS7NSwfhteWA2Tzh=L_gw1RNFWoLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [2601:600:8000:5a8:ccdc:8fb0:107c:4e51]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d724bafb-94cc-4a00-594f-08d339901b42
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR0301MB0647; 5:eXAF22f54l2qQNDrGHaO58jhbJl5COjbG2e+JTIYOLI11i8kSwaN9cTkvqNizTsBCxEsOBUmzdeYTDqpQfdRphJ2vlcrJM2qyxPQ9tsGpIxfIdqaMlMXXuk04qt2CjBWtNDvv6nnU0BbbhgABhB0gQ==; 24:+T6oFPG4HWnis+v1d6TekJm8htSv1Eo6RNA8A/h6Oufl+2ETAwSRJnzwd72rnJPtxPd6rKg6UDIyc41/ZcfeWl7C7vdzjS3GIu3DTKzNqCY=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0647;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY2PR0301MB06471C1A0D7E81139ED55DEA83A10@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0647; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0647;
x-forefront-prvs: 0858FF8026
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(24454002)(122556002)(76576001)(110136002)(102836003)(5001960100002)(4326007)(86362001)(1220700001)(3280700002)(586003)(5008740100001)(86612001)(1096002)(77096005)(5003600100002)(3660700001)(19580405001)(87936001)(2906002)(74316001)(6116002)(11100500001)(5002640100001)(33656002)(189998001)(54356999)(50986999)(76176999)(99286002)(10090500001)(8990500004)(5004730100002)(92566002)(10290500002)(10400500002)(5005710100001)(40100003)(19580395003)(2950100001)(2900100001)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0647; H:BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
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: 20 Feb 2016 00:52:28.2122 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0301MB0647
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/C4eDabIiCDLtRTx72c-HdELW9Gk>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] 202 (Accepted) and simplifying acknowledgements
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: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:52:35 -0000

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Martin Thomson < martin.thomson@gmail.com > wrote:

> The question is: what would the :receipt link identify? 
<big snip>

Beyond reducing moving parts, there is really no substantial behavioral difference from the current :push:receipt design. But it's been a long week and I may be missing the obvious.

The PS has the same amount of information when returning a :push:receipt as before, since it has the ability to maintain the relationships (implicit or explicit) between an individual subscription and/or a subscription set, and its corresponding :push resource. It could return the appropriate :push:receipt for all responses related to a specific :push resource.

That's why we've always had language to provide a way for the AS to discern between receipts associated with different messages:

   Each receipt is pushed as the response to a synthesized GET request
   sent in a PUSH_PROMISE.  This GET request is made to the same push
   message resource that was created by the push service when the
   application server requested message delivery.  

Or are you proposing a new feature and I've missed the point?

...Brian

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email