IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-11: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 12 October 2016 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@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 83E1D12958D; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 3WXTHt-hOrNo; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x232.google.com (mail-yb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::232]) (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 A1C1E129628; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 184so25084984yby.2; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:48:24 -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=NKeDCSF6a27xwUUgIPnNNEnlTqWCmQfCAQBAKAj7Fzk=; b=sPo5kVVVsh7JaEzZmV1cRumAN90pubM8E6JkH5rT6w6OWtmFA/gHdmayYN+EnyKaPK VSgulSQZfnjgD9fBI2sIz/p1EPV8m1j5Q5yJ6T95aD8Fkd/bRRZj6gYWnFcGL0NVH1LF 3Ul7MwWE+dSh8kcXP2OSJUp85D9t39T09GaGKN/KXjc0yPVK7zahGpzNdddzkK+eAAwk EQ/x3Tx7BuMVYqcqRZCaDk/2T7rEFnBh13CzSoqXvupwWsrhgvsAuoIvFuslz8L8buyB HDVEUjK4JlhcqHqZ6u1y/FovarPWYKrhGn9KEfJUzl02lvvzSohEcCC74e1aVe1l635H +kcA==
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=NKeDCSF6a27xwUUgIPnNNEnlTqWCmQfCAQBAKAj7Fzk=; b=Doh2lo36lmtM/Czo4ngsjhXj7Ml3EVtn9WuC59mowpgSUxv7+I9bLHJfWxX+fYDc/p ZDtLjEKJ/PPOA8OWhYgG/iyWWrogSjrT6SlOnKO/HYGvCfqENt0c/AMghil09sTj28Bu 5EHwN3QgQr5prCHGUsoP/+9Ei+N0frv4YGclPTmGyuuMliFt17HOB2BGYHbfXDzdlKMG OuAoofQeknu1WKJE9f8PgZ5KGJiII8/SEdnklAwEwpPBdcau2SndjZvogpAtn3mdrI9P J6CND6oVLsMLXo6ss/rjs/Mjc5Nbw7qASRcB5MZWpVO2t0AZai20ToMlKp7bIxQjqUG3 yHTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rl0zhP1Q1pI/LcLP3C8Y62sRelTn+/nn4lnPMwNT9v0opDadKCs1+MPd7J1+Tx+Gi2nw4ZxtYqQXBrbIw==
X-Received: by 10.37.29.133 with SMTP id d127mr3207306ybd.58.1476316103651; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.92.67 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.92.67 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <831BB8CC-4343-463A-8703-107364C7371B@nostrum.com>
References: <147630754676.6419.3793529940535426058.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKKJt-fk5UaMHgKhHugpLbTH8TVTq8MWYzkhDLOwSL-kH3u94A@mail.gmail.com> <831BB8CC-4343-463A-8703-107364C7371B@nostrum.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:48:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-epvGLfXnsoNi5iogQGhwtf9z2VXoHhFjdicDXYhk7yEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11427750ef38dc053eb3a0d5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/J8-HGQS2MbRdzVQRfD9LE-M0pjU>
Cc: draft-ietf-webpush-protocol@ietf.org, Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>, webpush-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, webpush@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-11: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 23:48:27 -0000

Hi, Ben,

On Oct 12, 2016 17:12, "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
> On 12 Oct 2016, at 16:29, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-11: Yes
>>>
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-webpush-protocol/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Thanks for a well written document. I have a few questions on one topic,
>>> for which the answers may be obvious to people other than me:
>>>
>>> In section 8, 2nd paragraph: "Applications using this protocol MUST use
>>> mechanisms that provide
>>>    confidentiality, integrity and data origin authentication."
>>>
>>> What must it use those mechanisms for? Are we talking about
communication
>>> between the UA and app servers? Are we just talking about data in
motion?
>>>  As much as I like to see such requirements in general, is it reasonable
>>> for webpush to state requirements on the internal operation of the
>>> application?
>>>
>>
>> For what it's worth, I didn't understand whether the mandatory HTTP over
>> TLS (right?) satisfies this MUST, or whether it meant something
completely
>> different.
>>
>
> Ah, right, I guess it could mean that. I assumed that it was talking
about something not already covered by the other TLS requirements.

Yeah, I was kinda guessing, too :-)

>> So I'm also curious about Ben's comment.
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email