Re: [Webpush] Polling to adopt VAPID draft

I am seeing that there are enough support/interests for this draft, so I am going to ask the authors to submit it as a WG draft. 

Thanks! 
Shida as co-chair

> On Apr 6, 2016, at 12:20 AM, Richard Maher <maherrj@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> Here we go again :-(
> 
> > This mailing list is to discuss the IETF WebPush protocol
> 
> Yes, a living and evolving document. Let's not seek to censor the discussion or spit the dummy.
> 
> > while some
> > push implementations have inspired additions, 
> > they are separate from the spec that browsers 
> > are working to implement.
> 
> An interesting opinion. IMHO, that demarcation is so narrow and restrictive that's it's no wonder that real world technology in the wild has rendered these standards redundant.
> 
> Once again, Web-Apps are deliberately being denied the life-giving functionality of native Apps by design.
> 
> Is this more about Mozilla's free messaging service not be resourced sufficiently in order to match GCM functionality?
> 
> I can see the Google involvement but I suggest we need more. AWS around?
> 
> > For WebPush, thats the primary intention.
> 
> Who voted for that??? 
> 
> Look FWIW I'll vote no to this standard as a moratorium on bureaucracy is required until the terms of reference has been revisited. Bit more RAD, Agile, Iterative, Buzz-word methodology needed here? Surely only those on the receiving end of Panama could vote for such a WebPush killer :-(
> 
> > What you're referring to has been proposed as
> > the WebPush aggregation spec, which can be found here:
> > https://github.com/martinthomson/webpush-aggregate <https://github.com/martinthomson/webpush-aggregate>
> 
> No it is not and please do not put words in my mouth. I want the broadcasting capability that GCM is offering today and I think I can already achieve it at the App server but the subscription mapping should to be done at the client. Just give us another PushManager,subscribe(option).
> 
> Cheers Richard
> 
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com <mailto:bbangert@mozilla.com>> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Richard Maher <maherrj@googlemail.com <mailto:maherrj@googlemail.com>> wrote:
> > Hi Benjamin,
> >
> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-04#section-6.4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-04#section-6.4>
> >
> > Now I'm completely lost and more than a tad disappointed.
> 
> This mailing list is to discuss the IETF WebPush protocol, while some
> push implementations have inspired additions, they are separate from
> the spec that browsers are working to implement.
> 
> >
> >> That is documentation for Google Cloud Messaging,
> >
> > I know. I, perhaps wrongly, assumed the consumers of GCM (et al) would take
> > full advantage of the infrastructure. "Collapsing" is a very useful
> > optimization option but surely not the raison d'etre of topics?
> 
> For WebPush, thats the primary intention.
> 
> 
> > I want to subscribe to /SEVERE/PERTH topics for push messages my weather
> > app. The fact that old messages are collapsed is wonderful but if you're
> > also going to bombard me with /MILD/TIMBUKTU messages (and so on) then I'm
> > not too happy.
> >
> > I want to subscribe to the BHP stock ticker broadcasts and then maybe add
> > FMG but I don't want the ASX 200.
> >
> > Have I really imagined that GCM cann do that?
> 
> GCM can, WebPush cannot. What you're referring to has been proposed as
> the WebPush aggregation spec, which can be found here:
> https://github.com/martinthomson/webpush-aggregate <https://github.com/martinthomson/webpush-aggregate>
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Webpush mailing list
> Webpush@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush