Re: [Webpush] some comments and feedback on the draft-thomson-webpush-protocol-00

[Darshak Thakore <[e-mail]>]

I did look at that thread and the issue.
I¹m not necessarily suggesting that we solve the prioritization problem in
this draft itself. I agree that we first need to gather use cases and
requirements.
All I was suggesting for now is that given that the Prefer header is a
good candidate to carry such information, can we for now also use it to
carry the TTL semantics instead of defining a new header.

Darshak


On 6/24/15, 4:40 PM, "Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH)"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>On Thursday, Jun 18, 2015, Darshak Thakore <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>
>> Push message prioritization - Would it make sense to use the Prefer
>>header instead of the TTL header. This would allow carrying
>>prioritization info for
>> messages (the prioritization is only relative to the application
>>server's own set of messages) to be carried in the Prefer header (e.g.
>>Prefer: priority=5, wait=10).
>> Also the wait 0 can be used to indicate the equivalent of TTL 0 or we
>>can even define a new preference token.
>
>Dan Druta raised the question of priorities earlier on the mailing list.
>The thread starts:
>  
>https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/7ltW-kU9katoRX6J0hlv-QAFplM
>
>There's also a related issue open on our github:
>  https://github.com/unicorn-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/28
>which references - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-http-nice-02
>- as an option to explore.
>
>It would be helpful to first clarify use cases and requirements as Dan
>concluded in the earlier
>thread?
>
>
>
>