Re: [Webpush] Subscription Sets - Pull Request

[Benjamin Bangert <[e-mail]>]

-- copying my comments on the github PR here

Why is the receipt URL now included on every PUSH message frame? The client
should already know the receipt URL from the original subscription request,
no?

re: SHOULD for using subscription set URL vs. subscription URL

Could this be 'MUST'? Here's my rationale for why. If its should, then I
must maintain multiple indexes on every message for a subscription set. One
for the subscription URL, and one for the subscription set. At scale, this
is extremely expensive. I planned on dumping all notifications to the same
subscription set, into a single bucket. If I need to provide access based
on the subscription URL separate from the set URL, then I'll need an
additional index.
As an additional gotcha if its SHOULD, a client may ask for a subscription
set and an individual subscription in the set at the same time, which could
result in some odd situations where its likely the client will get dupes of
messages since the server could dump what it has under both overlapping
concerns before any ack's are received.

Overall I like how this looks. The PENDING section on how a server might
know to attach new subscription requests to an existing subscription set
could be resolved by requiring a client upon connecting to immediately
request delivery of a notification set before asking for new subscriptions.
This way the connection handler can associate the subscription set with the
connection, and a server may then associate new subscriptions with the
outstanding subscription set request. This could also provide a client with
a way to manage 'groups' of subscription sets, since it could assume that
the last subscription set it asked for is what new subscriptions on that
connection will be attached to.

This could be useful for the IoT use-cases where a client might want to
have some input on which subscriptions are grouped together.
Martin points out that this could also be handled by having a client
include a subscription set in the request. I like that approach as well.

Cheers,
Ben

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Brian Raymor <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> I’ve started a pull request for subscription sets for discussion at IETF
> 94 - https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/53 - I’d
> appreciate any early feedback prior to the meeting. The main open issue is
> how to correlate two different subscriptions.
>
>
>
> The pull request is based on the earlier proposal from IETF 93 -
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webpush/current/msg00272.html - and
> subsequent related issues -
> https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22subscription+sets%22
>
>
>
>
>
> …Brian
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webpush mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush
>
>