Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgement?
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 09 June 2016 00:58 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 4004F12D883
for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:58:59 -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 YfT3Opk0zFK5 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x234.google.com (mail-qg0-x234.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::234])
(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 BB39012D7F4
for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-x234.google.com with SMTP id 93so13158292qgx.2
for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 17:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=LhuttiSm9m3H9kA80132cBjJjr5pdZ2Q7Xq/BzpVVrc=;
b=C1LPh56RMIkwncqUPc1xIl5DQjirzVZhXchFCdspeIsSUlS3Jdk8npdnU4NFM0b04d
htAvc5VGxJ8VFR3+Ch7/5MCZFfCzUB4soconlcMXKJ2SMtL1KA+I6RZqFi0cJ4pqk0Yv
QpxmX+ZvVCpx/PCJq+cMwUqgBGLe2BdDmSDALlmxNns3KGSfrTlRSzXTra8M7Fk+SIoy
+v46kuafD8/ePCu+Tf7C+jvKv9lVgzc0htOOqxNoY7zezrzWDJdET1Ybw3B9oNZMlOlv
hHTVf+e1dS+zXAVDdFqCb5ni7vg4fBXJo01HVxPClNa7zs+w7TWgl3QLpFbCi1Vesti1
fq7A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=LhuttiSm9m3H9kA80132cBjJjr5pdZ2Q7Xq/BzpVVrc=;
b=eO3lKoov9S79EqOwMHa72XFp7EmcpE4URsKpRarYVfMnLCB82ZD2JY7o1ef6t52hdJ
+RHUUO0rTj87RXp447sYFVl1VJsExayiu06Kow+q2/uGp4hCaXIhh8uzhBWUBHbMqhbF
zX87KoLP1Cp1Bj6ut6D7kU6PTeMTZpWY3+GVAa16jPhAe4pu+A71Ye74ulX1plmfaRO0
BkVBsvSxHF97uCawCPFpdIqx3Fvxg2Idm1ddZD3Kmcsxmu0YbgZ1ZsUl+qMIxSaH7zJN
jdVf4eHDbs7XBVyzT2obznb+Zj5pRP3dW7lymv2GvvkEKFwGsDCC30AMXsVA7MhJlhwo
dBsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLS+SWqW5Uz3NeBzFYabIOXz0ctMCfwpYnfgsArUteHfy/qBTB5aOJ25T1JunwoqOudMG2qAZtxzEZEYA==
X-Received: by 10.140.101.240 with SMTP id u103mr7096615qge.61.1465433936904;
Wed, 08 Jun 2016 17:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.104.110 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 17:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABp8EuK32xxDLqv5a9+Pc=rETASmi+E-R5ALs9PWA1ntN_L0ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN+BUJpdSB-HvT6VQzVcAPqzwb_pn=HzLOC3r4ntSKjDh3ffLA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABkgnnVSrKp8sf31qpBztp1FH=AQHFCoAH9XVQx6JyU4BoEQaQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABp8EuLYHufcLSnJjCvKGsCqgXDeAzrwn3N2XdoK4x6Px+0w5w@mail.gmail.com>
<CABkgnnVcyFcd2MPUFKORkkyHpMDfALjAP34ByVJpLBEMSiZ=ZA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABp8EuKAcA9Vx3RO997MY3-niAgaNf_MZ3xjDW+zFE=7Hb_rbQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABkgnnXAqnY3sSzU67vLf3SS-RXcoF-Uq=KT+hyPOu5ATV+bSw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABp8EuK32xxDLqv5a9+Pc=rETASmi+E-R5ALs9PWA1ntN_L0ug@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:58:56 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnX-osOm7z3o5Bjmvm009jVtjqB8G+zETj-drcL9foUPFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/GOmA04XyPBJgzW0YUilG7X3BjB4>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>,
Idel Pivnitskiy <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgement?
X-BeenThere: webpush@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 09 Jun 2016 00:58:59 -0000
On 8 June 2016 at 23:42, Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com> wrote: > I'm in support of at-least-once processing, so the ack would occur last per > the DOM API. The difference would be that the DOM spec should require > ack even if decryption fails or the SW fails for some reason. So I get the point about decryption: if it is bad, then that won't change next time. But a SW failure makes the application vulnerable to random chance. Sure, the SW might be bad, but badness isn't a terminal condition there in the same way that crypto is.
- Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgem… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgem… Benjamin Bangert
- Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgem… Martin Thomson
- [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgement? Idel Pivnitskiy
- Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgem… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgem… Benjamin Bangert
- Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgem… Benjamin Bangert
- Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgem… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgem… Benjamin Bangert
- Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgem… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgem… Benjamin Bangert
- Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgem… Idel Pivnitskiy