Re: [Webpush] Broadcast (was Re: webpush for http2 -02)
Richard Maher <maherrj@googlemail.com> Mon, 21 March 2016 07:06 UTC
Return-Path: <maherrj@googlemail.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 DE1EC12D675 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 00:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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=googlemail.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 p9L4FwGbltoS for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 00:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x232.google.com (mail-lb0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::232]) (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 D534D12D113 for <Webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 00:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-x232.google.com with SMTP id qe11so66584862lbc.3 for <Webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 00:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=2qJNzTd74CpBIDpUVW1bn/+0oHSniGbOYWTDWA+3UvE=; b=cNRfPTpDdTsDk2B9QL7kT4Cnv9l9z9G/9JwYu30KkzcSJGHX6tfxiwmXCw2MtwaoOC MEiHM3Z5hxHjgVvEB6RXykMW7ncyQsJ7e4lyN6KXKr4Odw4Ta0GZb5Y3SwvU+gyFXT1q a/vGY3zf9diYDdE7z8d0DM8RJfruMMvy3iVfoLwLAZpVlBCi5LjbnWzdllqtBq+uYspG kEzj4jt0bGvtbW3RaQ/5ta0AYQpwZRSkVsr9+ZF4K3WcUFR8LmTReWFiEeQqHXKemt4L UAYpRgYtAUV0/tAEHBqNwqqxGDaPQDWJ6kjPNlU5J7/dfmEJory0fjGFbbhRtJixk4hp qNeg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=2qJNzTd74CpBIDpUVW1bn/+0oHSniGbOYWTDWA+3UvE=; b=WgCF2w8BoGN/Gp+Zkq2jnhcb2TgjPykaBaSV/fsLAKuBVo2B+0krWKzRSMi5LXM2um 9YIuYBkzDODTKmavWVv+57L3mjZIlrjD4m7vhv8DeZ+jNL2i6Qmt0lSWmBA2mZINFCqO u9KTbPklHTBRncYSwSpQy/16nDFfpPPpYAU8yy4mq9PW5X6GqRFx13erAVovXitWu5vz MZ6dlne5LOa4PFXIy3UWtwArrNa8Z+UsIblcMtiA8Ot3lF5z9FZSaSfb8Ec6/6DNTG35 LGwQgZAXPvxuCkzxr0B3k/GXRMY+DKS85wD3Ebl/uHysUczJZUee8hyWL/j25lduRzQ2 skzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJ8kd2/7nFjKd5aXCFjcAllcPjPlnt9bfxSrCHHjJP7wAdTmD0NCJuaB3ZcYGyRVfD/1T+4oAkYSjDzZg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.136.201 with SMTP id qc9mr7787471lbb.35.1458543977941; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 00:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.200.208 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 00:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:06:17 +0800
Message-ID: <CABvL1xoQjptFZtuoBSfDuwVuS0Hve-6uWp1DCDJjeFqa5Ez_dg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Maher <maherrj@googlemail.com>
To: Webpush@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e011831acb1d265052e89bb92"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/Vn-tDwTPHBuYFQ89eGCfg83WpKc>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:23:59 -0700
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Broadcast (was Re: webpush for http2 -02)
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, 21 Mar 2016 07:06:23 -0000
It looks like it's been a year since "broadcast" was side-lined. Time to get it back on the agenda? Most of the issues solved already by GCM Topics etc? Cheers Richard Maher Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com> Wed, 04 March 2015 20:12 UTCShow header <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=webpush&so=subject#> 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 >
- [Webpush] Broadcast (was Re: webpush for http2 -0… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Webpush] Broadcast (was Re: webpush for http… Elio Damaggio
- Re: [Webpush] Broadcast (was Re: webpush for http… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Webpush] Broadcast (was Re: webpush for http… Benjamin Bangert
- Re: [Webpush] Broadcast (was Re: webpush for http… Richard Maher