Re: [Webpush] Use Case related to subscription sets

Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> Mon, 11 January 2016 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <costin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61A421A8ADA for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:16:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 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, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 9RmokNy-TEl8 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x232.google.com (mail-oi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (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 9D9FE1A011C for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id w75so24176845oie.0 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:16:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Ppyn1Wwi5tautCbGQO26Cy4RBqbfEStc7MvPtqwegio=; b=c3z0DLe8yYkIVth0wSb017LraVl7L0+GcOQkzk2RCI3mYJeC8EO3xFkKNhdIkM5whx kn+T9QiHLEthsU8q3il3DQacpL8psUMjq3VmxpBiYucV49uOSfVTpIFmIuHBF8rAKouw 8kZIvD08tEVnbo/8hybE5Xg7sWz3l8jKRrVST1HcKn//4yakr9u/ZSqYdPG8Smga1sX5 l6vQ4loq6ZDMdL0anIUs6yDSeog2egFD65aQWml/rpslhW5ZGhME34mYB4gnfd3601CX zmshjzqJ+PNKKpdJ/1f2Tstp9gmAqEGLZ/1Yg35eMsDt+jDVcZ5e09SCN+t6gxmbe5OD mEsA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.204.136 with SMTP id c130mr92005162oig.93.1452532615952; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:16:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.8.74 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:16:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5693D96A.7000805@crf.canon.fr>
References: <564C50B7.7070505@crf.canon.fr> <CABp8EuLXNQWmc0mnt-m_vBQhPuhhef5GDgbrZdyM8TKUZv+GxQ@mail.gmail.com> <564EF895.4020200@crf.canon.fr> <CABp8Eu+OsXiEAsxOQpV_O-bF2o21upbJ14x8bCO=Y9TfgXOw2A@mail.gmail.com> <BY2PR0301MB06474FB76B480F37957A531A831A0@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <5652E2CD.8090709@crf.canon.fr> <CABp8EuKoWQ+JJdbqcTAge7wK=69P4M-e9kSZjoRW04yYvardUw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWkWt1=styBxLV6GiZ+D7kcryP3-2gm82T1b-Rv-UuF-g@mail.gmail.com> <BY2PR0301MB06470B1FAFD7C49000DAE3CF83070@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnUD=64yOuD=kP+2YFnFbftJY9nrT3f1aqCG3FR+y-++ug@mail.gmail.com> <5654AABC.3000000@crf.canon.fr> <BY2PR0301MB0647DF16F9FC3B177F8F4CB283F70@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <5693D96A.7000805@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:16:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CAP8-FqnMah1Y8=+mbL5fHdpWTBV4ExwVFbeJW3kLufW87ytRWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Herv=C3=A9_Ruellan?= <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137b11299403b0529121a21
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/KnCQsCkXGGDYGb8ms--Tsowfo1w>
Cc: Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com>, Brian Raymor <brian.raymor@microsoft.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Use Case related to subscription sets
X-BeenThere: webpush@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:16:58 -0000

It's even more complicated if you consider that a camera may have it's
own wifi connection ( watches are in this situation). Another example is
'multiple profiles/users' on the same device, sharing a single TCP
connection.

No objections - but it's one of the most difficult problems, implementing
it efficiently is tricky.

I suggest considering the same authentication mechanism that we discussed
for app servers
in the case of UAs - i.e. a JWT, signed with UA-generated key. Would
eliminate some
ambiguity, and make it a bit more clear what happens in cases of multiple
paths to reach
the final device ( camera/watch/etc).

Costin

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
wrote:

> The PR brings a good solution for our use case of a client acting as a
> proxy. I've got no objections merging it, on the contrary.
>
> Hervé
>
>
> On 09/01/16 02:05, Brian Raymor wrote:
>
>>
>> Is there any further feedback on Martin's pull request?
>>
>> https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/67
>>
>> If there are no objections, I'd like to merge into the webpush draft
>> early next week.
>>
>> ...Brian
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hervé Ruellan [mailto:herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 10:22 AM
>> To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com>om>; webpush@ietf.org; Brian
>> Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Webpush] Use Case related to subscription sets
>>
>> Thanks for the pull request.
>>
>> I find it a good compromise: it covers our use-case while still
>> encouraging UA to reuse subscription sets.
>>
>> Hervé
>>
>> On 24/11/15 00:19, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> > On 23 November 2015 at 13:46, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Perhaps the combination of "user agent decides" with "push service
>> *encourages*"
>> >> by limiting concurrent HTTP/2 streams is the potential compromise.
>> >
>> > That's where I'm headed.  Though I'm also adding "spec *encourages*"
>> > by using the word MUST.  I don't think that we get any gains for the
>> > important scenarios if we don't provide at least some encouragement to
>> > aggregate into a set.
>> >
>> > I've added text to the PR that explains what the push service might do
>> > to punish user agents that don't allow for aggregation.  It's relying
>> > on the same magical anti-DoS stuff again, which is hardly ever
>> > perfect, but often adequate in practice.
>> >
>> > Here I expect that looking at the connection will work to catch
>> > genuine but innocent mistakes.  The bad guys are always going to be
>> > harder to pin down.
>> >
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Webpush mailing list
> Webpush@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush
>