IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Receipt subscription follow-up

Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> Tue, 26 April 2016 05:33 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 5FAF512B039 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 22:33:01 -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 FtlfXn25LfLJ for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 22:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x231.google.com (mail-io0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::231]) (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 EA45412B017 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 22:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x231.google.com with SMTP id f89so6255618ioi.0 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 22:32:59 -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=TfuJKqWP8I5CwksBiQX7DXY3lrf2ek/WGzYngGV7/ew=; b=TYZV+uQt79//d4WkKopw9OLIbXXOwJqfG5RsfuoHj7lEFdFsL9vKaS9Gaod06nhmIv ScZSAXj2s5aMoovP8vfqFXZc80WDHHKyzfL+dp9J5pAGGEDRvLLawZHT8C6jLMQibj7u pX/gALhLuHppj47h5g9HgXQevPUg857138o24Z7SbiFujnI/Ipvd3UmUBaOkwWx/AxLf 424DbYkZCv842+dO7Ah8qzy4BXbqy+Qlz9WDSBJaozCCPHbErHgIr7k2oGk71AbnQ4Pb YNITzSsjwQVqby8kc0sbZO8EwUyNoB4D+6eS/R15uwUwO1TiXdUs0C5XnAt7O477HKZT ICrQ==
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=TfuJKqWP8I5CwksBiQX7DXY3lrf2ek/WGzYngGV7/ew=; b=ecXjuyy/Yw1luzrfFfC4+f0GfxZEVic09FO5llFvezMn2zhWsUBIw5lbSCrzAUmtKN Whpo9bzAUNbRQ2dhVSkL8gv36Xl0Ij5EmQ8Z+J3U723ic6i4fHAc7eZIJ01oH6ac8Tyn MdlVgB+7t9wHzBuVnfdW3HhizwhMqHz/sJ6b9rvksKUVzuAhpxzmuH8X9OjJw6Sd//mp 3hOls26aE6uPrX4KLPfnd+yuZhbyQpFWW8gU3Tb8lkG8Pa4ZM21y+v1KtbnyGo00D9qo mOdXuVuksFYb6KtyqLbqNcX+NSHOt5kNaZIY1sjydUMGT4i9IcXO8ldG6XUGArejtZQT NQLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUTxZBdsHw3KLoBI/sMCGHRLNEcmCRbGOa0yqPvbc3SlUTn4T+7Lm6NEPZKpe6dJh7/icfdkSP6Qwt/8A==
X-Received: by 10.107.53.87 with SMTP id c84mr1224137ioa.2.1461648779349; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 22:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABkgnnXKDZvLWxkhFP0R4jW=ZyFwqiqQREFA5BFKH9i4PQCmyA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-Fq=Oi_kGebcRsyHYQdXWwLxFQxFwR=jeOyKS-+vW7eE=0w@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnX35n3K=cGTC2EvwG3=w6X7uWCikw+QFqhO7-RiLV8zJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-FqmcguLQaVxeNs1ROAG0XEBgYNtDiJ3+sYUcxmRrFfou1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUvimZ8z6XZBpKobjfp3R_WudV=ienXR-DH8B7Li98v0A@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-FqnSkmtpE3CaW10BoQkpd1E8Rt8T-sNB1avOBcsLhp_sdg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWzi_Zvsfr=DQkyT0NGV2H5TROyB6eP=zsY-Rj4UBUERg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWzi_Zvsfr=DQkyT0NGV2H5TROyB6eP=zsY-Rj4UBUERg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 05:32:50 +0000
Message-ID: <CAP8-FqkY33i9upmKB-mvidJWH_r9q9XW5CUK0c7jnFCu4aChBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1144939c47967c05315ca0fc
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/Q-X_UQd2t63rUO5yePWShc4c2n0>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Receipt subscription follow-up
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, 26 Apr 2016 05:33:01 -0000

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:28 PM Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 26 April 2016 at 15:26, Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The wording of the spec doesn't seem to ensure this.
>
> Yes.  I'm trying to get that clarity now.
>
> > I can see some benefits - but also costs :-)
>
> Yes.  One way of managing the costs is to have the PS reject a push if
> the number of receipt subscriptions gets too high.  Brian has text for
> that in his PR for that already.
>

Having one receipt subscription per region/DC may keep the number low
enough - but there is still the issue of locality. If you send a message in
US to a device in EU, should the PS be required to send the receipt back to
US, to the same DC, even if there is an AS server in EU, maybe less loaded
?

I agree it simplifies some logic on the AS side, but what happens when
a DC goes down  ?

Costin

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email