[Webpush] Alternate/fallback mechanism for receiving
Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> Sat, 20 February 2016 16:59 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 17D871A9053
for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:59:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 z8kn0Nqk0wbt for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:59:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x236.google.com (mail-oi0-x236.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::236])
(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 645031A9056
for <webpush@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:59:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x236.google.com with SMTP id j125so31863632oih.0
for <webpush@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:59:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=JaLKdh9Xah0k4wFjx6hPR5xIl7OZPKYSj4HVIVob/VA=;
b=cQ+8aeU543PqhPAacsIxgz9tBj/ggU4GyrcFOInb3L1U4mkl/86+U8o0kojr3pARTE
lFWPU/s/CtlNFT09iDBlLzHWnET/uxC9tqhNzg6w9mIKeeK22rmIoULaWm8HzOWBPrsL
a9i9KiyyhfSZmyqHpca2W2EhiKNenCQLLqX9zeNW8u4RuRZHG2aYbF8E/rWSs8pisjbh
geqXcBnfHrO9KKQltS2jF5IQmxtlQ1nJjdWnlgPF68diKXr6h3Tt+65JZ2TDOqMRLyO4
uiKiPoKRiSc4bRT6Ju9IQgJgdxQ6IxIE4Iqm50l/EcsQSss0AK2s6Zlm0dqafjME63rj
3WxQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type;
bh=JaLKdh9Xah0k4wFjx6hPR5xIl7OZPKYSj4HVIVob/VA=;
b=ANZp0sFVgosIUNdD2wIZ30Or69m3yOaBpa9wTjmV8d+u0LWXrETt4tvNJd9gn1GUSb
XaLx0JMa+pU6Gx1rksgpyaHY1y9dpgiHwX+PoODTGpoEkSNcO0wNxcPAR75oE7YY8p+I
kF+kflOekGa4xzqA4Q8qd2KfePMASPQSsIeY0BDwumRVqMQjXbqgXMyE+uJk1ikB2OIb
Cm3vt7tTJDlTVaWdGl7G9el+4Tq5vJHDlC/2p7K4jc/g+VqIHhslz+gu4OMusVBuYX3N
PHfCd4NDNLGIs7fCsq1jW9ZVx+LedSDmpDSUEO3Ml+6qZWQvwQEE1BXJhqay37URK0PP
dVQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSC01TDC+aKyP9crxsxTFpr8AjW31T7iXlHx9cbaUvVdk+jSF6irsJIKL/CFLJbiSMb3ougohWmkjTojg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.215.137 with SMTP id o131mr15959408oig.6.1455987562732;
Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:59:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.75.35 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:59:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:59:22 +0000
Message-ID: <CAP8-Fq=TYTzAVtt7P+bsQ78R=LWwvhPRaTJc=7GXOD06ByKdFw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
To: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d54f8796301052c36857f
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/StLuoPvGZaxdLvi-2KQ2wIJX7dY>
Subject: [Webpush] Alternate/fallback mechanism for receiving
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: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:59:25 -0000
Hi, I know this may be a bit controversial, and I love both HTTP/2 and push promises :-) However, to make it easier to implement/test/deploy, would it be possible to add a small change to sections 7, 7.1 and 7.3: 'if http/2 or push promises are not supported on a platform, the PS will return a mime-multipart response to the GET request, with the same content as the push promise' Nothing else needs to be changed - just instead of a push promise frame, it will be a mime part. A UA or PS can support only http/2 - but some may optionally also support the multipart response, and accept requests as http/1.1. While many HTTP/2 stacks are now available, the APIs for push promises are not very familiar or well exposed. This is a problem in particular for receipts, since the AS to PS communication has to be implemented by many developers. It will also help in the case of UA to PS, low-end IOT devices tend to lack http/2 support. Costin
- [Webpush] Alternate/fallback mechanism for receiv… Costin Manolache
- Re: [Webpush] Alternate/fallback mechanism for re… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Webpush] Alternate/fallback mechanism for re… Costin Manolache
- Re: [Webpush] Alternate/fallback mechanism for re… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Webpush] Alternate/fallback mechanism for re… Costin Manolache