[Webpush] Voluntary application server identification

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 23 November 2015 23:43 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@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 C8A001AD0C6 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:43:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 9EK1wp9m_3Hk for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:43:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22e.google.com (mail-io0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22e]) (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 4E3571AD09D for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:43:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ioir85 with SMTP id r85so3671812ioi.1 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:43:57 -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=HOvPAbNBn7lgJBFbEOjY5iaZ87vXanwrCaX+lBbDZbQ=; b=zDG1Cte+aW5NrBP5tVGzProuxHlsof+xPd9m1rZEMoP4F7TwuCBJf73WjWkw9UGbcz 0eagJiuZOals729bEx0Acm9DNt2qcmre5vsxPShyHpGOBuz2awDmTeYEzIZzRZKqQrum AhCt1vEVsVeRZtS23h94SHj7NjXC0B87Qo3HujfdeO2iFKZPB/cfiFnPOX5bEniNueUK LAF8e3oLtbqESrZggrQB4LP50dYVbOpucgXMJvwtUR4kYq5ZVyFDoQmnf4KsXfyZzJ8P tl9FTDHcVoeGq7pvTcYEWmQ0audQid+27en81PUVwER/Y0VllqUOl56/msHmBz9Y/FXL 3rkw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.26.144 with SMTP id a138mr15224557ioa.100.1448322237596; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:43:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.155.139 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:43:57 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:43:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVseWsGsALwp7ZbQQ68krjiiUqGaOh8jfOXF-AN0DdAgg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/UO-fpR5i-0c2zE6OUq-Bbp7LrwI>
Subject: [Webpush] Voluntary application server identification
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: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 23:44:00 -0000

I did a little write up of the options that I think are most likely
solutions for issue #44:
  https://martinthomson.github.io/webpush-vapid/

(Submission as an I-D is imminent.)

All the relevant considerations are covered in the draft.  I started
out by describing a single option, but realized that addressing the
alternatives was probably wise.  In doing so, I think that some
combination of alternatives might not be as crazy as I first thought.

Some are clearly less good.  In particular, request signing has been
proposed, but I think that putting a signature validation on the
critical path is not a great idea.  The other options are much better
in this regard.