IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Non-blocking comments on -05

Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> Tue, 07 June 2016 23:19 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 061CA12D18E for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 oQvjLOdhiuuF for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0747.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::747]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF32C12D641 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:18:23 -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=72Y8wbnc2qqmcy2mWOKFRxEr3mUaDCWtdljSh+vlgtI=; b=fIQUqAL9Yc3u8Ssc7MqhTPxX8UfdSG1m6qTrATOQCjuP5qqrH6KsP9fQWYU6O1JkUD2Hh/x41+wX8ZOasWR9ye05ppu/oXrj5ORqkYmow0IbyWNenB6ItDy4G9quVGY42PvFnC5ayzuGNQ7wAw3JoC8ZdWIOQopSX9p3YriLnbM=
Received: from BN3PR03MB2403.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.75.14) by BN3PR03MB2402.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.75.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.511.8; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:17:32 +0000
Received: from BN3PR03MB2403.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.75.14]) by BN3PR03MB2403.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.75.14]) with mapi id 15.01.0511.010; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:17:32 +0000
From: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
To: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Webpush] Non-blocking comments on -05
Thread-Index: AQHRu3RQwDJq8LaJ6EaFkMQ0Dd4KCZ/Uf30AgADyW4CAAFBvAIACFwOAgACLvQCAADsggIAGDeOg
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 23:17:31 +0000
Message-ID: <BN3PR03MB240396B9F24E762D04E61CEB835D0@BN3PR03MB2403.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CALt3x6=_yc9TegOut_g+6W5fvhP7sfW+_gwRZnEVFA5PNgER6Q@mail.gmail.com> <6af49c2baf1b4e4f884b812d573b947e@Antiope.crf.canon.fr> <CABkgnnWebfxnPOLMXK+n+2G=c8DOG4Eb4AWMsWXJmmdnE4pUwg@mail.gmail.com> <989D9268-BE9A-47F7-9181-C0F323D1DA1F@mozilla.com> <CAP8-Fq=ccph+RcKH9byKD6f-05zHYkUvMVG=OR=4=rq06dc7DA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUYH7b1N-QKs5JVuYpZGBhrQqt9cQ+Vt7LeHuLY_+LR9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-Fq=adQhi3ik27CNee8Q8bZWD5vkX2cJUqOehzHaSb_+kAg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8-Fq=adQhi3ik27CNee8Q8bZWD5vkX2cJUqOehzHaSb_+kAg@mail.gmail.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: bce8a5a5-7471-4b6e-44e5-08d38f29e6f3
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN3PR03MB2402; 5:2YQufWbh+mUx6YOh+nIIXYU+bibJTAtyc4JLTuaEA8gtCs+ligV8Ea0BIhQHjJj4XYpB6zq1weUrJlOykOoLLgF1yklEXyZDNwzGIo+YZ70LbHUK5WqGWM0W50GrEWlDG771SgnsftqmjRoT6BFlLQ==; 24:dLFWiZU81Hz4FIFNND9/XoL4w7DDiFqY2sb/XCOaF/DSQk13aP/BH0l196Hn7oN2ZZftHeY8CHPssbHDvZA2fmzyayh1H119Lyd1EZs/8wQ=; 7:XjXCG7ygRCuhEHx+BIIXoX8wn7aeFIonxACGav7iFq7/RhbKTA06+SzcciEqutslNZAZUiD2vp8RWL0XxTJk03o6aky0GSZNhrOv9WjgIVpGVAoVmA5/iEIwe0AiMoIBtTzuk7kdthArOpUPMKVY8KKBHHKEuBv4hc4Fp/5TzACHbC+LE35meyT4OelQ3Pier5hThFifdjuRGLWJ54ARs8r3mjltykYzBeduFYzD54f+cFQvzWAGcKpVvyGozwcy
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN3PR03MB2402;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN3PR03MB2402C40E10AA57AC8ABC50EE835D0@BN3PR03MB2402.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863)(166708455590820)(211936372134217)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:BN3PR03MB2402; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR03MB2402;
x-forefront-prvs: 09669DB681
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(979002)(199003)(189002)(24454002)(377454003)(5008740100001)(68736007)(16236675004)(99286002)(5001770100001)(8936002)(11100500001)(2906002)(4326007)(106116001)(87936001)(97736004)(10400500002)(8990500004)(6116002)(790700001)(3280700002)(5005710100001)(93886004)(33656002)(10290500002)(105586002)(3846002)(76576001)(122556002)(5004730100002)(102836003)(106356001)(86612001)(5002640100001)(10090500001)(77096005)(19617315012)(86362001)(54356999)(586003)(19625215002)(50986999)(76176999)(2950100001)(5003600100002)(19609705001)(3660700001)(189998001)(101416001)(66066001)(19580395003)(15975445007)(19580405001)(81166006)(81156014)(74316001)(8676002)(19300405004)(92566002)(2900100001)(9686002)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR03MB2402; H:BN3PR03MB2403.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN3PR03MB240396B9F24E762D04E61CEB835D0BN3PR03MB2403namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Jun 2016 23:17:31.9724 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR03MB2402
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/K5C21bAycCdFSfjtPEM2307UZYs>
Cc: Kit Cambridge <kcambridge@mozilla.com>, RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>, Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Non-blocking comments on -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: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 23:19:35 -0000

If there are no further comments or proposals, I will close https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/109

Thanks,
…Brian


From: Costin Manolache [mailto:costin@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 7:48 PM
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Kit Cambridge <kcambridge@mozilla.com>om>; Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>om>; Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>om>; webpush@ietf.org; RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Non-blocking comments on -05

We support 4k, and it would be great to keep it as is for regular UA
and PS.

However if the push service is proxying to other protocols - there are
services limiting the size to 2k, and I assume for IoT or other cases
the limit may be even lower. In such cases the PS can't deliver - so
should indicate the cause.
In most cases the AS has more information about the UA - so it shouldn't
attempt to send 4k to a lightbulb with 256B of free RAM.

Costin




On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:16 PM Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 4 June 2016 at 00:56, Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com<mailto:costin@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> In section 7.2, could we consider allowing push servers to reject messages
>> < 4k? If the PS is proxying the message to a third-party server, which
>> Mozilla's server does on iOS and Android, it might not be able to control
>> the size limit.
>
>
> +1


Do either of you want to recommend an alternative limit?  The limit
exists so that application servers can send messages of a certain size
without having to worry that they will be told to go away.  That's a
useful property to maintain.  However, if there are practical limits
that make 4k too hard, please pick a more realistic limit.  Is it 2k?
Less?

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email