IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-webpush-protocol-00.txt

"DRUTA, DAN" <dd5826@att.com> Wed, 29 April 2015 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <dd5826@att.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 729281A909D for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 6xUaLp9NUpSk for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com [209.65.160.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 132681ACE7C for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [144.160.128.153] (EHLO flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.4-5) with ESMTP id d1031455.2afdc1c15940.5698711.00-2479.15850744.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from <dd5826@att.com>); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:25:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 5541301d35e84498-04fc024d1632bc576f249a22181976d2bc1805fb
Received: from unknown [144.160.128.153] (EHLO flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-7.2.4-5) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 51031455.0.5698620.00-2299.15850484.nbfkord-smmo06.seg.att.com (envelope-from <dd5826@att.com>); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:25:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 554130175b6dba19-62703caf6285e708fe4dc9bdab2555f7b48e5914
Received: from enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3TJP8Qm010359; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:25:08 -0700
Received: from flpi489.ffdc.sbc.com (flpi489.ffdc.sbc.com [130.4.162.183]) by flpi408.enaf.ffdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3TJP5Gw010331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:25:05 -0700
Received: from CAFRFD1MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com (CAFRFD1MSGHUBAD.itservices.sbc.com [130.4.169.143]) by flpi489.ffdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:24:52 GMT
Received: from CAFRFD1MSGUSRIA.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.1.65]) by CAFRFD1MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.4.169.143]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:24:52 -0700
From: "DRUTA, DAN" <dd5826@att.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Webpush] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-webpush-protocol-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQgq5MeMbau1+lGEeNVEQr7zZpxZ1kWdBQ
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:24:51 +0000
Message-ID: <4AA3A95D6033ED488F8AE4E45F474487455B32A8@CAFRFD1MSGUSRIA.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <20150416000844.29595.68704.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BY2PR0301MB06476276461E2A3286266C4583E40@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <4AA3A95D6033ED488F8AE4E45F474487455B1E2A@CAFRFD1MSGUSRIA.ITServices.sbc.com> <CABkgnnV06rTBPOAQ_yD-Q_8QnoiJMJJQyhFanAchb2WMjA-saA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnV06rTBPOAQ_yD-Q_8QnoiJMJJQyhFanAchb2WMjA-saA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.161.219.255]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=Xbw+OvF5 c=1 sm=1 a=xwOvzTHDVLE4u4nGvK72ag==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=cDMoV1pVlfoA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=zQP]
X-AnalysisOut: [7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=e9J7MTPGsLIA:10 a=pGLkceISA]
X-AnalysisOut: [AAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=NEAV23lmAAAA:8 a=cRO23dQ8JaucZOtF]
X-AnalysisOut: [vpcA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=jCaSjmxH7wZDqm39:21 a=SVsQ1fK-g]
X-AnalysisOut: [5EE1f6K:21]
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2014051901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <dd5826@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.128.153]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/FIicT4ysDiPkT6G2ztlBf0F5XB8>
Cc: "Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH)" <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-webpush-protocol-00.txt
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 29 Apr 2015 19:25:24 -0000

Hi Martin,

I think we can address the relative priority in the web push draft at minimum with some clarifications on use cases and some of the requirements. Much like I tried to explain in my example and you expanded with the device nap scenario.
If NICE proposal gets support in http WG I don't see any reason to reinvent the wheel but as of now I believe your draft is expired.
At least we should determine how important of a feature this is.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 11:57 AM
To: DRUTA, DAN
Cc: Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH); webpush@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Webpush] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-webpush-protocol-00.txt

On 29 April 2015 at 10:12, DRUTA, DAN <dd5826@att.com> wrote:
> 1. Prioritization
[...]
> Is the expectation that the app server will send them in the right sequence and the push server will use a FIFO (first in first out) queue?

The draft really doesn't say, partly because we didn't discuss it
much, partly because I think that we'd want some flexibility.  I've
opened an issue on this in our issue tracker so that we don't forget
this.

> Priority is a fairly basic requirement and I hope it can get handled in a header so it can be consistently enforced by the push service.

Prioritization is a concern if there are multiple messages to deliver
at the same time.  This happens most often when a device comes back
from a short nap (as mobile devices do all the time).  With a small
number of messages, this might not be a big deal, but if there is a
backlog to clear, it could be.  I have a draft on signaling priorities
that could be used in this context:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-http-nice-02

Do you think that we need to address this in a basic protocol
specification, or can it rely on other specifications.

> 2. Message deduplication and retries.

Yes, reliability is hard.  The intent is to have the application mark
messages and perform deduplication if it does resending, especially
within the TTL period that the push service promises.

In terms of the protocol, there is a proposal for message replacement
that might reduce the need for some of this, but Brian, Elio and I
decided that we'd let this draft stabilize before talking about that
feature: https://github.com/unicorn-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/12

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email