IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Non-blocking comments on -05

Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> Wed, 01 June 2016 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <costin@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 9CEC412D50F for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:43:25 -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=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 WfkgzF3xpUbT for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22c.google.com (mail-pf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22c]) (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 EE33212D59F for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id g64so16534694pfb.2 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 07:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KUAwqj3phZpSmMAaaAuV4NrqDFMSzuxg+G8WFvl9fPY=; b=tQMBnyB95gu+6XSEmEu0FCkrW7+i9rASi8Fh+W8NN7tm7/e8HnelHHK0GIUA9DI5jd Oc3lkkUi1lImG5uc43RjlhJ1wwQvIg4rU3+uDDnqSZ19YKREAX72B87Zbdo8VZb1drdb rEIOk/22P43k8/YDkpJCsLCqazIoT3/vQWxMtvlwCqjCR9uvKh1sD5Wxr8lErTc9nuUt R3w0LI4IxNAVngYg+iZoI51tho6HmmGwV4jpmtGmm+GKO9Z7WFAV4yRFy/bSUtXWxIhy iQc6xgj9E/Y5NopOeF1QW97+nLAVtyzFsvm7UPzPcyQPY3jWAKhjicduMWEW6c+d/a5M W8qg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KUAwqj3phZpSmMAaaAuV4NrqDFMSzuxg+G8WFvl9fPY=; b=Pozgr7WMw9dXt2/JrbvRlJzLaUpZMUW+0uV7VBKFICf8pxt5dxPcHVYhBbZX5M8Iyl H/msC/9GhQd9Khq63YgkqsvDzpr99jCE50pNbNA7H2Y2tGXKGNaGrw3p/JX/F+aNAfKa aGBtWzPPDb+ziFR5MwJc3Vj2gnd5Cqzv9oVs301b7lq4OOrw4BgHhNNFRCP8Dg2vwav5 L3dyTz74U0lAo7aCq7pOrJvpeJnYdytt/74rjVSh4Qq67X0EvZbn0rlMHcClT28UC2DA 42dtbH7zU/LpocFlrqT9DbiZG2sXrhAr53m1F0ZMUlNBBa8rMEX6CKoWXiR9HKRsF9cV 0ikA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJnRSK1a/9fKLvWGPTYPdd4WVmfYP52sUxCmNPlItyYiAbYjd3JxbdU4k5MvdSsaj8qrQIGgPTXQ7XsaQ==
X-Received: by 10.98.100.132 with SMTP id y126mr9504246pfb.101.1464792202515; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 07:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALt3x6=_yc9TegOut_g+6W5fvhP7sfW+_gwRZnEVFA5PNgER6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUn7NSrh_vpEhezaBDCxWkt3fdnw8KxHjRtAH=23Hat-A@mail.gmail.com> <CO2PR03MB240753E779A28BD536187CE783470@CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnX_HSuyX1TXt49CBvi062vpVXG_Xc4eCF4E52w8EYs3Gw@mail.gmail.com> <CALt3x6mx4itcHZKE13uE0UAEiSpiUQ=7dX9fu-jfDco5HQWU0Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALt3x6mx4itcHZKE13uE0UAEiSpiUQ=7dX9fu-jfDco5HQWU0Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:43:12 +0000
Message-ID: <CAP8-FqkkZ-w+tH5W2SK+Sk0Yyru3k562UB5FCAkjEGHTgsTeGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0989aee69b91053438825d
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/ae6nwf8zwEoXp9poq3Rvc3aTmzQ>
Cc: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Non-blocking comments on -05
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: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:43:25 -0000

If  encoding what is needed for receipt in the message ID works for other
implementations,
I think we should keep it. I agree that requiring storage for TTL=0 defeats
the
purpose, ttl=0 should be the fastest and lowest cost way to deliver a
message.

In GCM we do send receipts for TTL=0, but it's easy to disable them for
webpush.

Costin

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 6:01 AM Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1 June 2016 at 13:42, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> > There was some early discussion in
>> https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/24.
>> >
>> > There were no major objections at the time. It just felt odd to have a
>> special case for TTL=0 in comparison to TTL=1.
>>
>> That's right, I remember now.  Costin has said as much on the PR that
>> I generated.  If Peter is OK with this explanation, I will just close
>> the PR.
>>
>
> I will defer to Costin— no-change resolution works for me.
>
> Thanks,
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webpush mailing list
> Webpush@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email