Re: [Webpush] Status for webpush-05 WGLC
Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> Tue, 14 June 2016 17:01 UTC
Return-Path: <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.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 A9CDB12D7A2 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.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 t7Kds64eN7Gs for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0125.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21C7012D853 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=0T8aWrlUnPhW/4Amj2HXRBr/A1Q4D82F2Qpo8UVYvYE=; b=n+mWj6XHr0c51TrdBE5V4PuRZNjw2zaqdlYsV+JuQp+bz/MSPJpowqxnh/hqQwS+iBT6+1EVT7mFUb1QoQBHf9ZSPH7y+wbkeYaqCUQUlnX3la5R//I7T6jjefvOLKiug7bzeeORKN1ugV5DBVKbfL0IJPdjQ20/IASx+gOsK2Q=
Received: from CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.93.137) by CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.93.137) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.517.8; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:00:59 +0000
Received: from CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.93.137]) by CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.93.137]) with mapi id 15.01.0517.011; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:00:59 +0000
From: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
To: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Status for webpush-05 WGLC
Thread-Index: AdHAOCd7uxTXYP7bRPSDqvdAJMja2AGHcj+Q
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:00:59 +0000
Message-ID: <CO2PR03MB24074B1ED97B87F0D273E88683540@CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CO2PR03MB2407F25BA3A3548DB9314C8E835C0@CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CO2PR03MB2407F25BA3A3548DB9314C8E835C0@CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [24.16.23.27]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4e47bfd4-c712-41c3-3ab3-08d3947575a9
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CO2PR03MB2407; 6:rKeLtxq7fmdbHz1q+k4aSEmXUeGxpfwYLlYlzWXPxwXOp/QVJqzO/JXvOfgqkv2txgD1UWPjygSRnpc3hZ7XnXkY6PzuoQoi5mbKwXssHlVPGTRGJ9OT2wBzktcuwA77xRPPtUA8S/pXvXoTT10XiF3WyT1DUM7lnf3niNPUJM3pX3K+DZMFTSnjD0rFv76hEpQDfpZFpi9U94WG1Qh3hpz6CBYHaLPz8jjGbMu/NE2xQdF+14VV4qw6bzUAtg3Kiz5GSIaNc0JTcpie/DbRlwLkqPNawjJgjSKqZw5dxzxHGdGo4PQpUV1dcV68gFmh; 5:4hxyFhlzFQE+vkTPKpSBK4/k12PqkoPRAxu+YEj0iMw4L4bFWojNxjYa1h47wHqllMzp5NwUwABjf6d56zaaM5+S401qsWE3Bp+MFSsROBE1WtpWs1WTa62gzJh58WUDxew77eIrA5bdPOeBkqnsHg==; 24:b6X3uxuuCo99A2u7W3M2xxiwx8Q+trELuOOMNfeMswGuCx59iD6OLN8rsVg722P6LskzGTDsjXHiNJr5l4uyX15B1YxMUpWtS1Q+Z70L1OQ=; 7:GjTtwR7P222qmSVkGdxaM6n0tFd8CC005ovfJ1ScRgM3y/VFHRUw0sMSrTHzx4eWsjpTcbf+iIWI3O2ymt8TIYEHp0/NIB7HvuFztcPvLKBaaBcI/0XKkSxfrexLLBbdxeFye/MVcwbwZ25pEFZjzn4C2ClNli/asUygWm6c1sY1slgCW8YrhSlZrptP+pcdU0PvOXllzDYToLc5sBm+cBY01I9Q9X3KFHDtXI8NdQw=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO2PR03MB2407;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO2PR03MB2407FC01319E74973E19152F83540@CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(166708455590820)(100405760836317);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:CO2PR03MB2407; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO2PR03MB2407;
x-forefront-prvs: 09730BD177
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(377454003)(199003)(189002)(122556002)(86362001)(66066001)(99286002)(2351001)(2906002)(106356001)(105586002)(586003)(3846002)(11100500001)(102836003)(6116002)(10090500001)(10290500002)(5005710100001)(10400500002)(2501003)(8936002)(8990500004)(9686002)(19580405001)(5004730100002)(77096005)(5002640100001)(19580395003)(76176999)(54356999)(74316001)(2950100001)(189998001)(2900100001)(87936001)(76576001)(15975445007)(33656002)(5640700001)(3280700002)(101416001)(5008740100001)(92566002)(81166006)(1730700003)(81156014)(8676002)(86612001)(50986999)(97736004)(3660700001)(110136002)(107886002)(5003600100002)(450100001)(68736007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR03MB2407; H:CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; CAT:NONE; LANG:en; CAT:NONE;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Jun 2016 17:00:59.4490 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO2PR03MB2407
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/JJyDNlt8CgtkJuJ3RK1zShcSa-I>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Status for webpush-05 WGLC
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, 14 Jun 2016 17:01:07 -0000
Update - All issues are closed. The last open PR is in review and ready to merge today. I plan to publish webpush-06 later today after reviewing the current draft. From: Webpush [mailto:webpush-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Raymor Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 2:16 PM To: webpush@ietf.org Subject: [Webpush] Status for webpush-05 WGLC I really appreciate all the detailed reading and thought that went into the feedback. Thanks for helping to improve the draft. Going forward, I would make one small request. Could we use separate mail subjects for separate topics? It's a bit difficult to track conversations when all the subject lines are "Non-blocking comments on -05" ;-) That said, if I've missed capturing or addressing your issue, please let me know. My goal is to publish webpush-06 on or before 6/13 if consensus is reached. We have until 7/8 to publish further drafts for IETF96. These open issues need more working group discussion: * Adds that receipt support is mandatory. https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/104 Receipts have been required since the -00 draft from July 2015 - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-00#section-6.2 Related threads on the mailing list: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webpush/current/msg00565.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webpush/current/msg00573.html * Allow push service to reject messages < 4K https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/109 Related thread on the mailing list: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webpush/current/msg00572.html These open issues are more editorial in nature: * Optional message encryption and push message examples Issue: https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/106 PR: https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/107 When we added "The ciphertext of the push message is included in the body of the request." during WGLC, the examples no longer matched the description. I'm leaning towards clear text examples for clarity with a pointer to an example of encrypted content in Martin's optional draft. * Make it a bit more obvious which is the send resource. https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/105 Costin writes - "push resource" is confusing me every time - "push" is used in all other resources. Please share your suggestions in the PR. * proxy uc https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/96 Herve provided further clarification for the Canon scenarios. Costin has pending feedback that needs to be addressed.
- Re: [Webpush] Status for webpush-05 WGLC Brian Raymor
- [Webpush] Status for webpush-05 WGLC Brian Raymor