IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Webpush] Receipt subscription follow-up

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 26 April 2016 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@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 9BA1A12D0E8 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:02:10 -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 hiIbU9AsaebB for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x233.google.com (mail-io0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (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 63E0612B01B for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x233.google.com with SMTP id u185so1572884iod.3 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=ZJdJqIQIlHYDK5P1FyAnUzuoJU49Yz7kmtQcKga3VVs=; b=B/W0nip96QXnSWgkH2XO/Lmo3b2WT7XVqyvCotB6SpWYROXPvheTOKdJ8TrVmYXLPb XhIngSTyXiKdF4FtQHoWxivLq+rDGdY+IAvGR/364VgMSb6x/eIdLdKonyIARAaH5BSU 07okCZHlkEft4QX5On4QsqAyzXoEA/rNBXTGZ/AaMiuYyLYJ60dh1ou4usoRPs8qS7nu SPllqxNkQi1Cpcm+T3E5Gh7l51/lvncGmkEsPEZeMcEZU4S8TrNh7QZLpVi1DynzUcRG 8JI1yGxfmME7mt8BrasgvOfQtA2PJVcKWq1/KKPkbpNi0LkB5YvshB7dsTYjDz4VfZDb sAuA==
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=ZJdJqIQIlHYDK5P1FyAnUzuoJU49Yz7kmtQcKga3VVs=; b=kMCztTsVDb0mgKvBLr1PG2S517rxgiO//C7RbzT2x/T5uF7gIr1Q4uENRsYjQx+HEE jwFq2b7vkZRar31vw0YYPH0kgi2sX6rLcgs4/gFlYG2j59w51X5f7fv+tq/Yzwx6jd9d 9lhXyvBziUe7QR1X73YduD7RD+SBpszEC9Vz7MJbmx7IF6QUJuJq8Lsrm91I7tFO+M6D nnl1jWWdmAD+FET2Eub5bod/7OadBEFBQwZMNQphgYLslmsgk37Yk/XZLjv+Laop3b2G 8+yITWF6qYWZocgp5eqoq94OFw8ewKtWH5EzkTmxV0/JDDzAr+z9EOuTpiC/NsLCyibu JTSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXL9qeWNrX5XyewmLkzB4zn0O74420xyLcB80kuY+hlTTjM7r/qSNPfUQoFNftKpPaAj9arMBD4oxjlDg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.136.76 with SMTP id k73mr99110iod.100.1461628928525; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.43.82 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:02:08 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXKDZvLWxkhFP0R4jW=ZyFwqiqQREFA5BFKH9i4PQCmyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/_bBHOddbv0u0C2cnaJqwObYenoI>
Subject: [Webpush] Receipt subscription follow-up
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: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:02:10 -0000

Not wanting to steal, Brian's thunder here, but this is the change we
discussed during the meeting:

  https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/84

It's good stuff, but there's a small wrinkle I thought that I'd raise:
https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/85

In short, Brian's proposed changes to receipts are good, but we need
to be clear about how an application server might choose to send a
receipt subscription obtained from one push in subsequent pushes.

I propose using origin (scheme+host+port).  If they are the same, then
a receipt subscription obtained from one push can be used with any
other push to the same origin.  The server is required to understand
these subscriptions (or not raise any errors if it can't).

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email