IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgement?

Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com> Thu, 09 June 2016 01:38 UTC

Return-Path: <bbangert@mozilla.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 D8D5B12D684 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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=mozilla-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 4jiT3IpuPXyQ for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (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 E0A1C12D1DC for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id m62so25615789iof.0 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 18:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=3P7wM+FczzwD4QWl1/GUgkz/206+DzBKWJddSLA0O84=; b=ar7FMACbgfN880lI1QNSjDTZWvGsVMExjNI4DLunbbaPf/Z+oUwrZfGgkcwVzC67sl xJGmDBfIuNAeBx4gdMDjeaP+zr59SFIV/WF2VCjxGN7pLv0wequaQFxeSI3sGNHnZv0a c6EyecyWuJtRMgSldQuQDAVO3SN+C4Wg5kw4UIXQBrqx9Uc2vMlK01WmcKzT481bF07Z AZ+UJ77pbQHJANqkqRobJQ54UHfCBjLM0C8E45+vhUs/ch5Ouh3FRL0k8lalgbS0aK4x BxB+p/4bRNx9ZFRmsrLLgrJfA6I/bqqbMrSoLUtn8tEDH1LD2tHH56yS4q0o0zY+PF4h Rg7A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=3P7wM+FczzwD4QWl1/GUgkz/206+DzBKWJddSLA0O84=; b=gJxiyvxLu4mLZ8NC5glrBe6BtY9oa9k3Dkabd6u20QGAyTux7V9CE0NIZ9P9zLrALR PhNOpbRftwcjb/h6VMxahy0MNWobirYVEeLKOZb11XOyg1IoYIt96lV6AqKPzjXoka10 hTj0PQHmm3ojQUPV+GWReykOuIzZ5lBJWGQeQmO2vG0mS/xq44hFh/5FsOn382aZxR6w J/AFpB5YcGIzrmc+jDZxva7wDxMNLDnemf3l5KXqmEr7lpD2XMEYRdGoDL0sdwRFAThN p3G1fjTm35ODcl1ZKH8km8UH5smTH3QjjU9/jb/H4iIj3vkUoxWsT+gmjEiJPDDRbz6K pX9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIkWe/m/VdjpkGY5oDjYnVSfLwHOWEydmrRN4PxCI2zK6nVnpY4NV0VRTNjczGP+mYoeaJ99DNIvxDQLABD
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.197.194 with SMTP id v185mr6043443iof.34.1465436335039; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 18:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.76.194 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnX-osOm7z3o5Bjmvm009jVtjqB8G+zETj-drcL9foUPFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN+BUJpdSB-HvT6VQzVcAPqzwb_pn=HzLOC3r4ntSKjDh3ffLA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVSrKp8sf31qpBztp1FH=AQHFCoAH9XVQx6JyU4BoEQaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABp8EuLYHufcLSnJjCvKGsCqgXDeAzrwn3N2XdoK4x6Px+0w5w@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVcyFcd2MPUFKORkkyHpMDfALjAP34ByVJpLBEMSiZ=ZA@mail.gmail.com> <CABp8EuKAcA9Vx3RO997MY3-niAgaNf_MZ3xjDW+zFE=7Hb_rbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXAqnY3sSzU67vLf3SS-RXcoF-Uq=KT+hyPOu5ATV+bSw@mail.gmail.com> <CABp8EuK32xxDLqv5a9+Pc=rETASmi+E-R5ALs9PWA1ntN_L0ug@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnX-osOm7z3o5Bjmvm009jVtjqB8G+zETj-drcL9foUPFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:38:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CABp8EuJnO32w7Uchzn1Ohwr8DkHLj5tgnD-qCUK1n2dWbJjUtA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/QHHdVXeM09CCQvnk6rOvBzVsDC8>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>, Idel Pivnitskiy <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] When UA should send an acknowledgement?
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: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 01:38:59 -0000

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 June 2016 at 23:42, Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> I'm in support of at-least-once processing, so the ack would occur last per
>> the DOM API. The difference would be that the DOM spec should require
>> ack even if decryption fails or the SW fails for some reason.
>
> So I get the point about decryption: if it is bad, then that won't
> change next time.  But a SW failure makes the application vulnerable
> to random chance.  Sure, the SW might be bad, but badness isn't a
> terminal condition there in the same way that crypto is.

Agreed, I think its sensible for a UA to try the message once more. If
a crash or something else bad still occurs, the UA can ack instead of
trying for a third time. Given the UA's manage to remember tabs open
right before a crash, it doesn't seem far-fetched for a UA to count
process attempts for a message-id where a crash occurred afterwards.

Cheers,
Ben

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email