IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Different status codes for negative Push Message Receipts

Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> Thu, 09 June 2016 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.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 0672112D60C for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.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 eTNSwJCzPFxf for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0755.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:755]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C51D212D5A0 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=J69l1vLuS07bVohZtiwTgXTtW3I4jlUqikGVl02mGOs=; b=fe1NYQQzSw6ml3S/tI5KLee/nYYcwixAlbZuKOmmidlxVaR2WiW8NDboVGRbbvhX7Mwlaxx2J026+HE8sxXLY52qMBpaDBiu4sBIs+2/XvOu5qxXfSp9ZMklGgYzgTGuWtI8gpeWfikBYIYfP49BF7YYEOiiYnaRSFzTTplVkT0=
Received: from CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.93.137) by CO2PR03MB2405.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.93.135) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.517.8; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 23:05:26 +0000
Received: from CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.93.137]) by CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.93.137]) with mapi id 15.01.0517.005; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 23:05:26 +0000
From: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
To: Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com>
Thread-Topic: [Webpush] Different status codes for negative Push Message Receipts
Thread-Index: AQHRwEa5vUhTLLwUUEWQzOHJmCGu/Z/eo8FggAAPjQCAAwqd8A==
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 23:05:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CO2PR03MB24077717D90CFFF854430EE4835F0@CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAN+BUJpZCHsAbf+6GOatOdw6Mq4R2asrKVjiOpivavCANLYMsA@mail.gmail.com> <BN3PR03MB2403FF7DAF6F11A6EA8FD2A4835D0@BN3PR03MB2403.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABp8EuK=dYYD+mKc_=OWHbNRq-MLcg_XEOHg=_Y9Cm6OF8Gngg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABp8EuK=dYYD+mKc_=OWHbNRq-MLcg_XEOHg=_Y9Cm6OF8Gngg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [24.16.23.27]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 52273a98-14f2-41b8-cf11-08d390ba8b87
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CO2PR03MB2405; 6:jqaLOfIMR2JuHnoyLxdcHJ6u0RVKx7sRNMrmzynnxpN74BZlk740l/chodjYk98WQ0JNO8gwMBF6l2vAImEq23xqpxIjEJbMVro8suSobl5V+205Ipzc8ggkrWumI2qEmmEiBQFiJn4dkD9A+6gbHQKocHER+S4jlYeAZ+i7QZrLn25g8KnE1qFHNKZvi223A+Xx9yU7fzzevt/9WP39vO0o3uQE7mXu/N3YIRzgl9OlKo2JadqbF/rsqzsQ45ahfXqSb4PKgOaVtSdyRpjSUgKEjLCaQax5nRLf3Clo30zSk3kjtoxXDC8zMSYkkMH+3F6VYoKM8G8kLAslegfonA==; 5:loR4zP3cQNtKns8HPWSB28ZG9qy5neNciOFpOtj5GAv0GiMBSWfHk8GAHF6YNeaVKcqHHhwOpWvsrrayA3qLMk3/4C7n9cuMhboWppdcjpCkqsNmV+iJwGVRSeIjjUXU/bTvtXozTxgy9OzR+CjovA==; 24:FctrIGsEVxH0JcL+WHYI2jzrouzo5Au7z8SjMLGES/RUSZwvR1BeWgvIzj7G0OFHJ/cF9jPMAZZm5LzeYuKB3yHF3nAnbKneEhS4E47U21o=; 7:U2XpGgzlMhC2MVs3K26hBjR00W0hltJYN7qeewYxedlrUsuNXHoNYUUyEBOs+8YDbWopQEOrYYLhTwo07xaKeNUJo+8d8r+fISv97/q6S3qfmxjwYLE9kBai5vicE0LqJERFI/f3Xj13PBaDHo1cg2JUuwb80EM+fGcDKzA8RIKCIFz57r3Krpc9rW2PaXBxce40fbCI7V11DJlcD6JdCpyAPPw1WN/a9NAJQPADru6Ztai8xBZ+gnU35lkB8dNH
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO2PR03MB2405;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO2PR03MB2405A7239C647562063E1B5A835F0@CO2PR03MB2405.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(166708455590820);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:CO2PR03MB2405; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO2PR03MB2405;
x-forefront-prvs: 0968D37274
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(13464003)(24454002)(199003)(377454003)(12063002)(189002)(33656002)(81156014)(8676002)(81166006)(15975445007)(4326007)(76576001)(5008740100001)(99286002)(2950100001)(2900100001)(6116002)(3846002)(102836003)(586003)(122556002)(86362001)(92566002)(7110500001)(76176999)(50986999)(86612001)(189998001)(54356999)(8990500004)(3660700001)(11100500001)(101416001)(2420400007)(15650500001)(9686002)(110136002)(106356001)(5004730100002)(5003600100002)(66066001)(68736007)(74316001)(3280700002)(10400500002)(10290500002)(105586002)(87936001)(106116001)(5005710100001)(2906002)(77096005)(19580395003)(97736004)(8936002)(19580405001)(5002640100001)(10710500007)(10090500001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR03MB2405; H:CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; CAT:NONE; LANG:en; CAT:NONE;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Jun 2016 23:05:26.8153 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO2PR03MB2405
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/V4WJmgFp3_JO50xtANfoy5josy8>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>, Idel Pivnitskiy <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Different status codes for negative Push Message Receipts
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 23:05:49 -0000

We've struggled mightily in the past to identify the best status codes for these scenarios, including:

* New status codes for webpush
* 5xx status codes
* Using 417 and Expect
* Acknowledgement-Data

A sample of related conversations:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webpush/current/msg00351.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webpush/current/msg00362.html
https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/17
https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/42
https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/49

It's my impression that we comprehensively exhausted the topic prior to WGLC unless there are new scenarios
to address.

Thoughts?

...Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Bangert [mailto:bbangert@mozilla.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 5:09 PM
To: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
Cc: Idel Pivnitskiy <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.com>om>; webpush@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Different status codes for negative Push Message Receipts

I have also added comments to the issue, would it be more appropriate
to discuss it here?

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 6, 2016 3:56 PM, Idel Pivnitskiy <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've created an issue on GitHub, related to this discussion:
>> https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/110
>> Could be useful for an AS to know what happened with push message / UA.
>
>
> I’ve added my comments to the issue.
>
> Thanks,
> ...Brian
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webpush mailing list
> Webpush@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email