[Webpush] Review based on first read-through

Lucas Jenß <lucas.jenss@gmail.com> Mon, 18 July 2016 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <lucas.jenss@gmail.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 AEDCD12B036 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 3jA7jFqZJUQ2 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com (mail-wm0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]) (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 4B87412D0FF for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id i5so128684510wmg.0 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:message-id:date:to :mime-version; bh=nHuvb28uRKg63pf65krFJzBpW3g3ql29nc8E9RzcEhA=; b=xePWAYhwvtsskIV037uQQ5+U6QS5GTLUyfkwlEW8eE7gPoTdS37FE0i12aBM1rKhdo 2RrboLWqkp9FqJ6Fk2Byo6s53PswcQ40fxoFBANidsvxPlq52rmrhDuAlWPlOtryRMzN e51/4Wp7ckCP7z223BOYPbIkTdMxqNfEC/Sqdul6fLNgS6NMvKEsZcC2qBcLNPCJmDa2 jpWsuhu1vGKTh2/jl4Fur4rirlKdjJQ1Nj2iAQ2vxikm5quqL1QcWKAycvdp8n655FGV 6AyhK5VSZLUjcqx7JyWxRCKuO+HSN8Gn5YWt6asxaP+lV0nTg0uDr9orM20ia5Ymc558 h3iw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:subject :message-id:date:to:mime-version; bh=nHuvb28uRKg63pf65krFJzBpW3g3ql29nc8E9RzcEhA=; b=Gtqj+gefo/u51+87tSbGcsCrbi9dvMvlX3DvGXzD1ltU+sY8RTNwCLbUsBO1QGpInP soYKzC7MjodVhFtqgJl3fSxfSA0ukxLj4V6JUFe5Txor/nd0apTSV80Tl/j8bI98DR6h 5RSt1RTFvyoIfyknpVKogi5qHMQe+Bs6skWnzyYBusG9PIg+HKbfz4JraCFhfFU820IG HtPBBGf3N3+DHsfeuQ2278nf/35EXtQsItvA0Vm9ZVoyUSlX91EhpWorBC+jdv1um2+L HKKmdJsxO9Q2BVPo444WKEJ290KRNGP6FE60+FTWIprWA94BTOcY5nkA24QBDA5DTn66 Y9Zw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLsLm9xJW0ktyCS7pNuqiEwciRF95Obvv1Z+C2hpBfs/kfHLDfzz/mh1CGQ+5dmQQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.158.226 with SMTP id wx2mr2745140wjb.160.1468866028590; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-9b5e.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-9b5e.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.155.94]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r16sm17930746wme.16.2016.07.18.11.20.27 for <webpush@ietf.org> (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: =?utf-8?Q?Lucas_Jen=C3=9F?= <lucas.jenss@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B76618EC-84A9-49C9-AD23-E9E1B5E7CDCB@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 20:20:27 +0200
To: webpush@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/VkUY_u4aNV84IgAd2984q4m67-Q>
Subject: [Webpush] Review based on first read-through
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: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:20:33 -0000

Hello all,

I’ve met Martin at the IETF 96 newcomer meet and greet, and he suggested that having another review for webpush-protocol couldn’t hurt, so here I am. This is my first draft review, so apologies if I’ve done something fundamentally wrong. 

First off, let me say that the draft was quite enjoyable to read. I have no relevant prior knowledge regarding protocol design docs, and most of the document was very straight forward to read and understand. There were two things, however, which caused some confusion while reading.

1. Until reaching Section 6, the concept of ‘monitoring for push messages’ actually works was unclear to me, but the term itself was used multiple times, beginning in Section 2. It was especially confusing in Section 5.3, where it says "A user agent MAY include the Urgency header field when monitoring for push messages […]”. Reading this, I got the feeling that I had missed some crucial aspect in the previous sections, since, for me, it reads like the reader should know how “monitoring for push messages” works. This problem was made somewhat worse by the fact that, when the process of monitoring for push messages is explained in Section 6, the word “monitoring” is never used, which makes it impossible to find by simply searching the document.

2. In Section 6, for me as a person who has no relevant experience with webpush or HTTP/2, it is not easily possible to understand which messages are sent to whom, both in the descriptions that begin with "Each push message is pushed as the response to a synthesized GET […]” as well as in the example requests. While I think I was able to infer from the context who the originators and recipients are in each case, I personally think it should be made clear who the sender of each message is. Since I’m not sure if I fully and correctly understand the mechanism yet, I unfortunately don’t have a good proposal on how to fix this.

Based on Martin’s suggestion I’ve also created a pull request on GitHub [1] with some minor quibbles and a couple of change proposals. Given that this is based on my first read-through of the draft, I expect some of them to be nonsense, so don’t be mad :)

Cheers and have a good evening,
Lucas

[1]: https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/124