Re: [Webpush] Use Case related to subscription sets

Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr> Tue, 24 November 2015 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
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 71D5A1A1A69 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:21:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.636
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585] 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 e0krEaE8xCoA for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from inari-msr.crf.canon.fr (inari-msr.crf.canon.fr [194.2.158.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2EC61A0856 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:21:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mir-bsr.corp.crf.canon.fr (mir-bsr.corp.crf.canon.fr [172.19.77.99]) by inari-msr.crf.canon.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tAOILoRY010031; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:21:50 +0100
Received: from Antiope.crf.canon.fr (antiope.fesl2.crf.canon.fr [172.19.70.56]) by mir-bsr.corp.crf.canon.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tAOILnZA023163; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:21:50 +0100
Received: from timor.intra-usr.crf.canon.fr (172.20.7.3) by Antiope.crf.canon.fr (172.19.70.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:21:49 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Herv=c3=a9_Ruellan?= <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <564C50B7.7070505@crf.canon.fr> <CABp8EuLXNQWmc0mnt-m_vBQhPuhhef5GDgbrZdyM8TKUZv+GxQ@mail.gmail.com> <564EF895.4020200@crf.canon.fr> <CABp8Eu+OsXiEAsxOQpV_O-bF2o21upbJ14x8bCO=Y9TfgXOw2A@mail.gmail.com> <BY2PR0301MB06474FB76B480F37957A531A831A0@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <5652E2CD.8090709@crf.canon.fr> <CABp8EuKoWQ+JJdbqcTAge7wK=69P4M-e9kSZjoRW04yYvardUw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWkWt1=styBxLV6GiZ+D7kcryP3-2gm82T1b-Rv-UuF-g@mail.gmail.com> <BY2PR0301MB06470B1FAFD7C49000DAE3CF83070@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnUD=64yOuD=kP+2YFnFbftJY9nrT3f1aqCG3FR+y-++ug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5654AABC.3000000@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:21:48 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUD=64yOuD=kP+2YFnFbftJY9nrT3f1aqCG3FR+y-++ug@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.20.7.3]
X-ClientProxiedBy: Antiope.crf.canon.fr (172.19.70.56) To Antiope.crf.canon.fr (172.19.70.56)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/Um_jf1CuaWiQgRsNBoXcN9xyrlg>
Cc: Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com>, Brian Raymor <brian.raymor@microsoft.com>, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Use Case related to subscription sets
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: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:21:55 -0000

Thanks for the pull request.

I find it a good compromise: it covers our use-case while still encouraging UA to reuse subscription sets.

Hervé

On 24/11/15 00:19, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 23 November 2015 at 13:46, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps the combination of "user agent decides" with "push service *encourages*"
> > by limiting concurrent HTTP/2 streams is the potential compromise.
>
> That's where I'm headed.  Though I'm also adding "spec *encourages*"
> by using the word MUST.  I don't think that we get any gains for the
> important scenarios if we don't provide at least some encouragement to
> aggregate into a set.
>
> I've added text to the PR that explains what the push service might do
> to punish user agents that don't allow for aggregation.  It's relying
> on the same magical anti-DoS stuff again, which is hardly ever
> perfect, but often adequate in practice.
>
> Here I expect that looking at the connection will work to catch
> genuine but innocent mistakes.  The bad guys are always going to be
> harder to pin down.
>