Re: [Webpush] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-webpush-vapid-03: (with COMMENT)

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Thu, 17 August 2017 11:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 B778613209D for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 04:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=ietf@kuehlewind.net header.d=kuehlewind.net
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 JrsH6CPBZAVg for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 04:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6969132025 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 04:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kuehlewind.net; b=Sc0fHrj+4r55rFavHDYy6ypzOsTDhrM7wbWZwfCGRzIf2TyAwZm+zV1V6LbsZtLeUdSIW+lgd2bI7Tvc5O8rYgtfqbL4bFzRoxKaq7PEe7zCXceZvT2sta4No0zeAcGYAZPpDtTV9UiMHs7Dmv/843bYU0+KlAwVC0/ME2z3Ebg=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-PPP-Message-ID:X-PPP-Vhost;
Received: (qmail 3665 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2017 13:26:46 +0200
Received: from pd9e11b0f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (HELO ?192.168.178.33?) (217.225.27.15) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 17 Aug 2017 13:26:46 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUbPO=qe9_+9TuEz2TOf_WuMbt6J9cCskO7bBh=jfgHOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:26:45 +0200
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-webpush-vapid <draft-ietf-webpush-vapid@ietf.org>, webpush-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4CC4719D-E067-43D4-B121-E5348E910AC4@kuehlewind.net>
References: <150279716374.21102.11813544027973282978.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABkgnnUbPO=qe9_+9TuEz2TOf_WuMbt6J9cCskO7bBh=jfgHOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-PPP-Message-ID: <20170817112646.3656.81496@lvps83-169-45-111.dedicated.hosteurope.de>
X-PPP-Vhost: kuehlewind.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/F8ugTA4cogO9qNyLlBxjRfbbuWs>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_dra?= =?utf-8?q?ft-ietf-webpush-vapid-03=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
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: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:26:49 -0000

I don’t know because Ekr proposes basically a different initial design which still doesn’t give my any hints if extensibility is needed in future; also you can always update this draft and add a registry later if a need comes up. But anyway not an issue. Do whatever you think is the right thing to do!


> Am 16.08.2017 um 02:05 schrieb Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>;:
> 
> On 15 August 2017 at 21:39, Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>; wrote:
>> Wondering if the new registry in section 6.2 is really needed. Is it expected
>> that new parameters show up any time soon? For me this doc reads like that's
>> the only two parameter you actually need.
> 
> I think that ekr's DISCUSS might make it clear that it isn't a
> complete waste of effort :)
>