IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> Sat, 04 June 2016 02:48 UTC

Return-Path: <costin@gmail.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 C1FAE12B005 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 19:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 UZWSh0uTOmir for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 19:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x234.google.com (mail-pf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::234]) (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 3163812D158 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 19:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x234.google.com with SMTP id b124so49215939pfb.0 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 19:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hymc498vo0i8Jj8CEWo2h0cyPNweOpMQT/IHYcvbwDo=; b=IPD1moc0UpRH/+gqwRde8ihvYhmffIaipD1/FYyoOWd/4WPIVIBQTmCJjyOvQttsJg gQl9HU+QFOa5uc+yEz4awjAp/OvfG9g7RNO59MjBxlVChASL4NuMp57Baw3oabsEcDci tj7p39QKq68tRpDf0Ldi3EvPCMVlL4ZdnRs/21zSX4gm6UjBWuTCAaKQd2WDz7RLPHIi BNQqc+D/hauaPUl8fe5EbLRLPjBb3KeG7uyhh6D6/um1MayKiDOwRlTV9X/5s/PXMFu6 MgMHab453bBI8HcF3qaARAFE0xJfwnclGIbOdq8cP9O8JTN2OLG5wbvWVyCp9nVVdj/F uTlg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hymc498vo0i8Jj8CEWo2h0cyPNweOpMQT/IHYcvbwDo=; b=CEgeu0dMesUKXmaLqk7xdNgc97d/EM/VNE9gAlyPz3UiQkV7bo0H+KjmAQ9mb4VnPk 7AMi4rOKKixONdkvzK32jaAJ3gOZ/oDSTLNch1f9Q8XGxXkCQRyWz8mSIuYjq6bhRIT3 lBSqGxJvaK8cmq4l0/5w2zlEe0qvmuumGwlDjIuVC4CLwxcgMQgmtTcJ2c2povasc0J8 pC0iV7H4SpGX97ndfvlfxsqTkoqYYGx8YoAYy2meVHF+aqQlG3KfPkU0b93TnggbWFPe HR33geVd3jJkOr7N6xk5IsZR1aZfWCxfHSs0B17Q5rxN0U6qgdCpIf++avtqLA0dRCEs 65/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKz4I18Ir+7A/9H4XLIBWXEoyG6M1OydwsPz61cuMqsPpxATAiqMgHQBHsd5OStGZkSLb21F+t02m4ong==
X-Received: by 10.98.57.85 with SMTP id g82mr9898423pfa.130.1465008501288; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 19:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUYH7b1N-QKs5JVuYpZGBhrQqt9cQ+Vt7LeHuLY_+LR9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2016 02:48:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CAP8-Fq=adQhi3ik27CNee8Q8bZWD5vkX2cJUqOehzHaSb_+kAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c112a6a4ff4d105346adf84
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/MpIdPqLru5KhPXcuylPdPKu2rig>
Cc: Kit Cambridge <kcambridge@mozilla.com>, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.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: Sat, 04 Jun 2016 02:48:24 -0000

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>
wrote:

> On 4 June 2016 at 00:56, Costin Manolache <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