Re: [Webpush] WGLC for draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-05

(off-list)

I think at this point it would be appropriate for me to send Richard a message off-list to ask him to refrain from unprofessional behavior on the list, per BCP 25. What do you think?

Thanks,
Alissa

> On May 31, 2016, at 6:36 PM, Richard Maher <maherrj@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> So with the WGLC drawing to a close, I make that a whole 3 people, excluding the authors, with anything positive to say about this draft standard. Does that not tell you something? Or is "3" what passes for quorum with you people?
> 
> Do you lot get paid per specification? Number of pages? Or do you actually get tasked with delivering a spec that industry-standard, feature-rich, and scalable solutions can be built upon? Or perhaps "Just describe whatever Autopush does"?
> 
> Disbelief.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:50 AM, JR Conlin <jconlin@mozilla.com <mailto:jconlin@mozilla.com>> wrote:
> I noted my opinion in the follow up. Basically, while the spec goes into great detail about other aspects of the protocol, sets are left mostly as "they may exist", and "it's up to the PS and UA".  I will also admit that I was initially confused because I hadn't noticed it was only between UA and PS, but a second read caught that.
> 
> I am fine as is, because I don't think that outside groups will be impacted by my concern, nor do I believe that they would fail to implement a solution if they misunderstood it.
> 
> On May 31, 2016 4:25 PM, "Brian Raymor" <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com <mailto:Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>> wrote:
> 
> On May 31, 2016, at 12:01 PM, JR Conlin <jconlin@mozilla.com <mailto:jconlin@mozilla.com>> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your feedback.
> 
> > There are some aspects of the published spec that are optional and seem a bit "hand wavey"* (e.g. "subscription sets")
> 
> How do you feel this could be improved? What details are missing from your perspective?
> 
> > I believe that the recommendation for expired or removed push subscription endpoints was to return 410, not 404 (see section 7.3). I note that 7.3.1 suggests 410 for expired subscription sets, so it might help if things were consistent.
> 
> Good catch.
> 7.3.1 should be 404 and not 410.
> 410 (Gone) is returned when a push service decides to cease delivery attempts before the TTL expires.
> 404 (Not Found) is returned when a push services expires a subscription or set.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Webpush mailing list
> Webpush@ietf.org <mailto:Webpush@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Webpush mailing list
> Webpush@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush