Re: [Webpush] WGLC for draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-05

[Shida Schubert <[e-mail]>]

Hi Richard;

Thank you for your feedback.

Currently developers need to either deal with different spec/api for each of the push notification providers (GCM, Azure, APN etc.) to communicate to their subscribers or use third party service (urban airship etc.), which is fine for native apps but gets a little more complicated with the browser. The IETF has agreed that we need a standardized protocol for this and that’s what we are chartered to work on. 

As for Broadcasting, from my shallow understanding isn’t it merely the same payload sent to set or all of subscribers? In which case, I believe it can be handled as an implementation matter likely at the application side. The protocol can be extended at later stage if wg agrees it is something that is necessary but I haven’t heard anybody else at the meeting or on the mailing list expressing this feature is a show-stopper.  

Anyway, I would very much appreciate it, if you can refrain the comments to the technical contents of the draft. 

Thanks
Shida

> On May 16, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Richard Maher <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> "5.4 Updating Push Messages" is based on the misconception that "Topics" are "Collapse Keys". The standard as proposed has been superseded by event on the ground by established, successful, and more importantly scalable solutions: -
> 
> Google Cloud Messaging: -
> https://developers.google.com/cloud-messaging/topic-messaging <https://developers.google.com/cloud-messaging/topic-messaging>
> 
> Azure Notification Hubs: -
>  https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2013/09/16/delivering-push-notifications-to-millions-of-devices-with-windows-azure-notification-hubs/ <https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2013/09/16/delivering-push-notifications-to-millions-of-devices-with-windows-azure-notification-hubs/>
> 
> Whether the Topics are identified via HTTP headers or JSON Tokens is the only moot point. What is clear is that the proposed protocol attempts to conflate the Topic and Collapse Key features: -
> https://developers.google.com/cloud-messaging/concept-options#collapsible_and_non-collapsible_messages <https://developers.google.com/cloud-messaging/concept-options#collapsible_and_non-collapsible_messages>
> 
> The fact that quintessential Push Notification feature "Broadcasting" has been descoped from this protocol must be sufficient to reject the proposal.
> 
> Please do not make the same mistake that you made with Geofences. IETF and W3C credibility has already suffered enough.
> 
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Shida Schubert <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> All;
> 
> As discussed at the IETF 95, as last issue surrounding the subscription re-use is addressed, we are starting a Working Group Last Call for the webpush protocol. 
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-05 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-05>
> 
> If you have any issues or questions regarding the draft please submit it to the list, when raising issues please provide constructive resolution when possible.
> 
> Please acknowledge on the list even when you are content/happy with the status of the draft. 
> 
> The Working Group Last Call will end on June 6th (3 weeks). 
> 
> Shida
> As co-chair
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Webpush mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Webpush mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush