Re: [Webpush] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-webpush-encryption-08: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 16 August 2017 01:35 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 D1AA71323A3; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:35:42 -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 0UNq7tor-gpS; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x230.google.com (mail-yw0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::230]) (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 8775C120713; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x230.google.com with SMTP id l82so14564159ywc.2; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hT/M2LER/NKsNxqjJZ7r4D0IEF9OO0YWJ/KFSdUxCK0=; b=mxPRwrNSCVwZ6EbUsNTT79Js9wXecrgkxd6VH3ds58OOSi/Y8AQSNRrQoYk3WyqQBl hXrpPgud8A2YtC7hL7u586ncpHbz3zwATRcmXZ7+zM+Jl+Fb8fQACwg07o0+5Deerw0a 0RPyrXn+4etUw/oVMfH7rrrtCFS4yI9JfJK+l+5cCohOmi0XpGhQG+obkwiojpSbCRBO qGqbja3IJg/T3rskintshXFWkILWc9TzQsYWlqyI1pqRnClEvKcttkc8+DIOAdsSQnAx XYE+Xxvtl+s47Lvpz0yN8HUSRFCvjb84cgX0uhWn13+3CDBKCkYwTxfk9avR/8eEVlFO iuEg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hT/M2LER/NKsNxqjJZ7r4D0IEF9OO0YWJ/KFSdUxCK0=; b=OP88QLN4REyFaN2Z1WluQRg/Gvw56oqPI+nT7URFX50Da5pPQjoltprDUWWgh7qEIz zvghH46U+wfGAZ5leO009DpWGW70Gu5edGhgGzV90s6GJckxByax9IQzw4/3fmz5KhVt O3hnzz4FIJ4YwBM6lVQNeR4fhS7BgsVQzknSpbKJwgj3Vudb5YpXG9ZaUWzZ5YmSlLnF 86etRQXfZFUoZ7lmG/9l6ueRBv7J9xlVMeoNpPJUO5SKuKZ0war5D9Tb3zc2U+UjF4Y5 WyzFihfXaNfuOkQ7gxEyCVYft25kXX5jnBZgKreP/LeiBy/6LXyWu6FM9aH9dpELCPjj NjHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jNBXYnIST0kJNHLex1uuInr44ocLRl7QVSRpfdqOB//vKlXVn5 H5YzfDCmBJM14pJS7JpXbs2WHYzNsQ==
X-Received: by 10.37.52.201 with SMTP id b192mr44771yba.293.1502847339646; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.40.194 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVHEnWz_T0Y_z+AurgVywxw6vtcKQx1mGSdRFFyy29PqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <150281372252.21061.13568867134437858167.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABkgnnVHEnWz_T0Y_z+AurgVywxw6vtcKQx1mGSdRFFyy29PqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:35:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-eBAMk4ycFgqubgQCP1MNP7X+_+ekiDHMUEhJiR2zoFYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-webpush-encryption@ietf.org, Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org>, webpush-chairs@ietf.org, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1147cb6cd4d9170556d4e9b8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/JC1RI48ZEfrAec5LT9DhPg87fL0>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-webpush-encryption-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: webpush@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 16 Aug 2017 01:35:43 -0000

Hi, Martin,

Top posting to say this looks like a plan. Thanks!

Spencer

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> On 16 August 2017 at 02:15, Spencer Dawkins
> <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
> > I found “for efficiency reasons” in this text
> >
> >   For efficiency reasons, multiple users of Web Push often share a
> >    central agent that aggregates push functionality.
> >
> > To be so broad that I wasn’t sure what you were telling the reader. Are
> there
> > any specific efficiencies that you could call out, so that we’d better
> > understand why central agents are used? And if that’s already written
> down
> > someplace, adding a pointer would be even better.
>
> It's engineering efficiency more than anything else.  On mobile
> platforms, this is the platform; on browsers, the browser.  If I
> remove the "for efficiency reasons" clause, I don't think we lose
> anything.
>
> > I’m curious about algorithm agility, but I’m not the person to ask that
> > question ...
>
> It's a common question.  Common enough that I'll add some text and
> avoid future occurrences.
>
> We have deployment experience with this already.  We deployed an
> earlier version, then had to change it a few times.  So we know how to
> do this.  The User Agent tells the application what content codings it
> likes.  The W3C spec has a supportedContentEncodings parameter on the
> PushManager interface that does this
> (https://w3c.github.io/push-api/#pushmanager-interface).
>
> For you:
>   https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-encryption/pull/18
>