IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] WGLC for draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-05

Richard Maher <maherrj@googlemail.com> Wed, 01 June 2016 01:36 UTC

Return-Path: <maherrj@googlemail.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 565D812D134 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:36:26 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.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 wTj_IJxCjetY for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x230.google.com (mail-qt0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::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 A68F212D0A1 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x230.google.com with SMTP id q45so32966qtq.1 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=Zu9VIVJQK6/BoGrDlkigKCwHg+viTx4BSKi9CV9ql+0=; b=x2fQRhtTGHeQckAvXJPYnE/2CGY6/Q28HJ0dU6CNTPXvoeVpEiXJcU2kIHhJ68uTkN ccnqkz4uqp0wtqFkRa6dUbrDnIk7mq0Ry9I93gdbH94Tt1ZM0VFXJ3JJogHdfCbSbo5y uFTOF+XOw2+grYRS/sre6Jx6ZHdDGd50s6Bx4wuOsXRxFM7519agczL5ox8fLbnoWVvg 6/hs9sIzVLo9enQrp8Zw+0rOiFwo2A/KfyS3o2O4E4n9Q027O21gxXK/NZjEWvwHbPEL SzT3PxfIcGg4v7buT9b5bP7qcOYCToPphDKs+YR9SDxMpJPB4GM+WR4JM6p+bnEVXX83 Nn6Q==
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=Zu9VIVJQK6/BoGrDlkigKCwHg+viTx4BSKi9CV9ql+0=; b=ZoXK4FcElZJyBtREsvJK+3bTSBwzqCyYnHGIa0M6uFmb6rX4MA03aqLloURrPAxXmq bhggIJrPuG8YTYpJTJ61w7qHWLQ2qN6v0DxxEqASCJwQVvMrm6U6a49tb7yUVF00Ifiv 7Slwh3cugil+jOWLVfVXMjLP+S6t/Ba9Uip6MQorrhQL5OWRVhwm7AIEDuIDKQDkmnzp u2nevUPzP9mdRbCVd5WrkQDkXpBqU6AyMX9KcEAOJDWVLgezzulzOQ9mj9EJpm5DYfQi 1WH30U45HCtgXmCpltRkMMgaSTKd0BxfNTHSXcWPWPERRCjCHdAi/avr+HM8PupQS76K Ya1A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKtoWRNNdDyIj9x72KYeBu9tZWRocHk9HRuhFgFi42bKH6AIz+H+QdvO1reYeVDyP7MY4QKCwP0q1JSrQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.200.42.249 with SMTP id c54mr1107259qta.6.1464744982757; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.55.104.194 with HTTP; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+XEteM53YDDFSau8OXOGPxFYN+1K=ZUfvFTTqLu20pwY4E++g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DA2216E6-CE23-47A0-AA7A-5E19DAF043AF@ntt-at.com> <CABvL1xrKExY4FXXmNogGKq2=PUd5HtZed09BOW1h33TXE79PNA@mail.gmail.com> <7BE6135D-961D-4D6E-B6FC-99BA27B1B0C4@ntt-at.com> <CABvL1xpiMcrtVj=ZCcesxsQJjUBJV23U5zbr5QKPeQDxQadOWg@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-Fqmnd_pvR32BY0AE6xwvPJ1B35ieDqHsCo=c3eV0o1soKA@mail.gmail.com> <4B69453E-54AD-414A-BDC3-18E175AA25BC@ntt-at.com> <4467b402-a69f-fc0e-f699-00ca9f9f14e8@mozilla.com> <CO2PR03MB24072A7C4FDD92BBF5609C5783460@CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CA+XEteM53YDDFSau8OXOGPxFYN+1K=ZUfvFTTqLu20pwY4E++g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:36:22 +0800
Message-ID: <CABvL1xp11Rufbe6OnFYBZZLLiFr=E96ZXKV2KdP3W1FhbgOL-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Maher <maherrj@googlemail.com>
To: jrconlin@mozilla.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11406bec624b8605342d8452
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/Jk0hmyF0UadjTMKsl82nj_kPUqo>
Cc: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, webpush@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Webpush] WGLC for draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-05
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, 01 Jun 2016 01:36:26 -0000

So with the WGLC drawing to a close, I make that a whole 3 people,
excluding the authors, with anything positive to say about this draft
standard. Does that not tell you something? Or is "3" what passes for
quorum with you people?

Do you lot get paid per specification? Number of pages? Or do you actually
get tasked with delivering a spec that industry-standard, feature-rich, and
scalable solutions can be built upon? Or perhaps "Just describe whatever
Autopush does"?

Disbelief.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:50 AM, JR Conlin <jconlin@mozilla.com> wrote:

> I noted my opinion in the follow up. Basically, while the spec goes into
> great detail about other aspects of the protocol, sets are left mostly as
> "they may exist", and "it's up to the PS and UA".  I will also admit that I
> was initially confused because I hadn't noticed it was only between UA and
> PS, but a second read caught that.
>
> I am fine as is, because I don't think that outside groups will be
> impacted by my concern, nor do I believe that they would fail to implement
> a solution if they misunderstood it.
> On May 31, 2016 4:25 PM, "Brian Raymor" <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 31, 2016, at 12:01 PM, JR Conlin <jconlin@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback.
>>
>> > There are some aspects of the published spec that are optional and seem
>> a bit "hand wavey"* (e.g. "subscription sets")
>>
>> How do you feel this could be improved? What details are missing from
>> your perspective?
>>
>> > I believe that the recommendation for expired or removed push
>> subscription endpoints was to return 410, not 404 (see section 7.3). I note
>> that 7.3.1 suggests 410 for expired subscription sets, so it might help if
>> things were consistent.
>>
>> Good catch.
>> 7.3.1 should be 404 and not 410.
>> 410 (Gone) is returned when a push service decides to cease delivery
>> attempts before the TTL expires.
>> 404 (Not Found) is returned when a push services expires a subscription
>> or set.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Webpush mailing list
> Webpush@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush
>
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email