Re: [Webpush] Broadcast (was Re: webpush for http2 -02)

Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com> Wed, 04 March 2015 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <bbangert@mozilla.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 EC9F21AC444 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:12:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.079
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 og9RR3WHgU9d for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:12:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) (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 6F2761A88E4 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:12:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wggz12 with SMTP id z12so49186975wgg.2 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:12:36 -0800 (PST)
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:content-type; bh=xNl/S5T0ZN1BBgreA7YFCHnEHmmSoT2jWCmGObtNw28=; b=YIEBPFIcMQExElwUhBAFJSFmSEYPsbtLeWZWkzOPKP1EDV2NnJtIdK5BjsPOv3GPAm VxB95KYdMjMau8urpvd0xC81TDSVjvx+RmMxBB28wuZx/HcWqgQA3GXQrXDTbpvWAmZG SSiWoFP0QM8fCyFt1ka7leLGOLN8gSkczDmbNy3s9Ye28YtyjMM0kXXHKt+rOEHlEjRp fY0mTpbQbxjEbNBaP4sVA33jObcSavFl2GVttW3hz6KcVR2BguSuTXXretyDt58UfpvE Qs2npZJQn36MS/12q9JD+iYh102UgvcOmBnDwwAYNCaGd++8h29Gb/zKZCP/00rBHgMk VMHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm7O4enk6nn2lRUJec7L9qrsOrqqizfha2iUoZISvwYLhjhzD8s933ijS2E40JNP0P8u6Np
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.108.178 with SMTP id hl18mr15550140wib.92.1425499956154; Wed, 04 Mar 2015 12:12:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.131.38 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:12:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWhstUP6poxYEC5-ZJazndc3G8Gb5uC7dFBy8fWKLeh7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnX29V6bLS2VneZWrRt8RJuAPhnyb3-TDBpoOYZ_JS6+mQ@mail.gmail.com> <BN1PR0301MB062619EE9F3CA089AEEBF60FCB160@BN1PR0301MB0626.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnWhstUP6poxYEC5-ZJazndc3G8Gb5uC7dFBy8fWKLeh7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 12:12:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CABp8EuJzKsJWNVx6HPsdfWM3XBm-crzQu73vFTHM2FCzDv4Zng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3ba0fd83aa9b05107c12db
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/TnCAPnc3bXEzl3xjueI0OYcr7QI>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>, Elio Damaggio <elioda@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Broadcast (was Re: webpush for http2 -02)
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 20:12:42 -0000

After reviewing it, and seeing this, I find myself in agreement. I'd
greatly prefer to have a basic protocol in place and some systems using it
before broadcast is tackle.

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> The question here for me is how much a protocol can enable this and
> how much is best left to services like Notification Hubs, etc...
> Those services are offered to those who wish to generate push messages
> and as such are less encumbered by a need for standardization.  In
> fact, much of their value-add derives from the flexibility and
> expressiveness of their APIs. They benefit from standardization of a
> push protocol in that their downstream interactions become
> homogeneous, but a standard for aggregation might only act as a
> constraint.
>
> The intent with the aggregation draft I described was to allow a
> single push service provider to provide aggregation capabilities
> across its endpoints.  That leaves open the possibility of an
> aggregator that operates across multiple push services (like the
> aforementioned),  It's hard to see how that could be driven from
> anything but the application side, where standards are less urgent.
>
> At this stage, my proposal seems more like a half-measure, and I'm
> reconsidering whether there is anything worth standardizing on the
> aggregation front.  Do you think that there is something here worth
> pursuing?
>
> Either way, I think that our efforts are best concentrated on
> completing the basic protocol first.
>
>
> On 25 February 2015 at 08:00, Elio Damaggio <elioda@microsoft.com>; wrote:
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > Continuing the discussion on broadcast, from our experience of designing
> and operating Azure Notification Hubs, we realized that the major hurdles
> for users of a push aggregation system are the following:
> >
> > 1.      Push aggregation have to be regularly synched with other data
> stores.
> > Aggregation sets are application data, e.g. list of people in "platinum"
> status, list of users following a certain sport team, enterprise or social
> groups. The protocol has to be amenable to synching operations. In our
> experience forcing explicit management of the topics (creation and
> deletion) hampers these operations compared to more flexible approaches
> where tags are associated to device tokens. Azure Notification Hubs is not
> the only system that uses this kind of grouping; Urban Airship and Parse
> (now Facebook) have a similar systems. Reference:
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn530749.aspx.
> >
> > 2.      Topic updates happen from both device and topic perspectives.
> > This means that it should be possible to say "add/remove topics A,B, and
> C to this user", and also "add/remove users 1,2, and 3 to/from this topic".
> In a system where both of this kind of updates happen concurrently, having
> to explicitly keep track of topic creation and deletion is burdensome.
> >
> > 3.      Sending to dynamic sets.
> > Given the effort that goes into synching topics between the push system
> and other stores, it is usually preferable for both the users and the
> implementer of the push aggregation system to allow Boolean expressions on
> topics to be used as targets. Consider a sports application that sends a
> reminder to everyone in Boston about a game between the Red Sox and
> Cardinals. If the client app registers tags about interest in teams and
> location, then the notification should be targeted to everyone in Boston
> who is interested in either the Red Sox or the Cardinals. This condition
> can be expressed with the following Boolean expression: (follows_RedSox ||
> follows_Cardinals) && location_Boston
> >
> > Notification Hubs, Urban Airship and Parse all support this feature.
> Even if this feature is not required to be implemented in all aggregation
> servers, it follows that a push endpoint, that is independent of a specific
> topic and that takes a target topic (or Boolean expression on topics), is
> probably better suited than a topic-specific push URL.
> >
> > Elio
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Webpush [mailto:webpush-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin
> Thomson
> > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 8:41 PM
> > To: Benjamin Bangert
> > Cc: webpush@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Webpush] Broadcast (was Re: webpush for http2 -02)
> >
> > On 13 February 2015 at 12:23, Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com>;
> wrote:
> >> Section 2:
> >> - The diagram is good, but I think adding one variant for broadcast
> >> messages would be good. I could see a crypto secured broadcast working
> like so:
> >>   - Broadcast Subscribe (In contrast to normal subscribe)
> >>   - Browser Agent makes Provide Subscription request to Application,
> >> including request (flag) to be issued the broadcast key
> >>   - Browser stores the broadcast key with the new subscription (rather
> >> than generating its own key)
> >
> > I have proposed a separate document with a different model for
> broadcast.  In that, clients/browsers/UAs don't drive the subscription to a
> broadcast, that broadcast is managed by the application sender.
> > I got the sense that there wasn't a whole lot of interest in a broadcast
> system in the initial stages.
> >
> > The advantage there is that you don't have to worry about clients having
> to be able to connect to push services that they might not have a
> pre-existing relationship with (and therefore federate authorization).  The
> disadvantage is that it drives more of the responsibility for push fanout
> onto the application server.
> >
> > In your proposal here, how do you see the broadcast subscription being
> identified and managed?  Would an application request the creation of one
> and then distribute it to its clients to subscribe to?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Webpush mailing list
> > Webpush@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush
>