IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Some comments on webpush server responses

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 16 August 2016 01:45 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 685EE12D647 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 XX4MBAbmpXsN for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22c.google.com (mail-qk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (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 3F03012D18A for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id v123so58501756qkh.2 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:45:38 -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=nIAJADGRHSXhQCN6eO9SCDwB97QY9DGNN7O0hcmQRSE=; b=xI7KJ4oXkEkEKNJPh7HG18UVFMGa6EsnMctHZjtGPi069zoh+YQmpeyc96emTDAHQn Ve9B6aZ9PiMsXAOmuPfgTP2XXPuzvVhp/Cc3niJxlIlWiHjvg5cS23Ci7YQqe7v8kE+9 mfgzgGD5VZ3wSDn8WBkuNgdlMDJM4QJb2aisTL9A19x6Cp9Z+HvWcCDUumWG2w2OEX8J AZN/gsD4Jv5685rQfVZce8vDX6DeF9XQhnid/FDKV9/+0c+j1EB2Ol6zMLS30KY+Px5p NQHF1738BU4FfsCB3ykj1hIyMbG9yL6fVm2kcCIhjMfdETwjR0Pt2+fX0HQbXy/d6Cjb K/WQ==
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=nIAJADGRHSXhQCN6eO9SCDwB97QY9DGNN7O0hcmQRSE=; b=bq0MA5bOdlnXM3QNMgjcCH2DSdhUU9StTukkAD3WoRx/55n2pJ0JQnP2CqKbVaagOD hV55vsDs3Tz4AR+D4Yrp6ni8V1gCGkwrBFO6985eqltlwblMNH0KC2hVocaTUCB8wfDp YaFJaGDjanUXVD8plLfnWF7agn4i2NLQcNA34w9UXBzDpD/6vUewY8LBJEmcMFcA4shy veSVLfHHC9WQ6SWKWzpzwhBmyPCTQQbN/sLpiCZPYPCIx3tXv4zRa6R5LKsagiRSniSg GhFLJMoZhNyQgON4FK/LCsx9hwPS9dhfDaR6tcj1+Dc7MVZ4masdlj9b0I5iiWMnOacS jB8w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvkomBCKG+vP+XUzd7wrb01lZVxqAFnsR9Rj1Zg01tFr43Bomgw89ky+Vwj8ZaggYR5freYiZ4ROEUZwg==
X-Received: by 10.55.11.7 with SMTP id 7mr38444283qkl.169.1471311937469; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.22.146 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAM5PDDwdPnM1U-dx6Caqf-Uv3yfTu+QxkKWkA90eCO+Mu_=sgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM5PDDwdPnM1U-dx6Caqf-Uv3yfTu+QxkKWkA90eCO+Mu_=sgQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:45:37 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnV5xu1ChQ70X9sxbjiGi45WjsB5sfVYyKN1ucAAzYiQSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ben Last <benlast@mobify.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114c8a646301ba053a26814f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/GsqezgdL-A5hlnwltC15SBc5LCc>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Some comments on webpush server responses
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: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 01:45:39 -0000

On 16 August 2016 at 02:50, Ben Last <benlast@mobify.com> wrote:

> It's important for us to be able to distinguish because in case 1 we
> should remove the subscription, in case 2 we should mark it as blocked (so
> that website code does not invite the user to resubscribe) and in case 3 we
> should mark the subscription so that a service worker or website code
> resubscribes.


Doesn't the permissions API allow you to distinguish between 2 and 3?  For
both those cases, you need to run code in the browser before the
distinction is relevant.

As for 1, why would you ever have an invalid subscription in your database?

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email