IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Different status codes for negative Push Message Receipts

Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com> Wed, 08 June 2016 00:08 UTC

Return-Path: <bbangert@mozilla.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 7A48412D8FF for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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=mozilla-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 LVASZxm6Yb13 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (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 3A1D912D8E0 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x230.google.com with SMTP id n127so29097499iof.3 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 17:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=t/v3lq0PjO8anRfh8QaNXiG2T0oJexgx2ZkAn2wuLhs=; b=Vq0fgfLPLIitKdFdK+IfEmsVrd8DPQEUCfd8jRhdua7+EnqRne5zqlQOioZAzkfU3T 6GoZDg691C46kXN5H73XiSwaXJGR4FfmDP6s+Dnvr3uc1piVmj75p1pYQ6OTZ6k9DrOz sSHKPY7T8U47gYODtluVpOjla8dVztR1/KvSBCE2tZhh6CG7nzczo2s8eSqBx6xQMA9C cIt0L1eRuwjwYd/dTLXFWMXUc0RngjwHdbTE7pVZZ2RBROIupPDhxZ9Xn1XuKYN76iBo vYyRMzZFH65oEiaul5X8lTt84ntUKe9YtplfVS74KQATvIrVjhqfJBRtexPBD6nPUqMj lQ7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=t/v3lq0PjO8anRfh8QaNXiG2T0oJexgx2ZkAn2wuLhs=; b=Gq2iOViMBWr6kHRnqbmUHCvURq1B7GSrKPQmre01AC6XMmhqo4v0JD5GDuZ1ipA7lJ 5K8DHMnqRSEHURABw/82ruY7wY6GtsyL6tGvPInpowZMfA31snBnUpzyYyxWNa2pm065 mn20htxQFkomHafvhEEQvfnSA0AIr5Olh2/yV2jEe8JctKQlHUbapVR6WIKycSPjJjf2 iVqC4Ij64E37CtCch1xzyZahYJs2xGLHXoLQOWOhxMEUGmLGkooMnCIYPGW9pnV6i10P 3rNf+kZHRj1xfguamqr3XLA16ILzaDbsSpXskb8wWzdQboh7BAxpy2CoE70Y/qnojfBc DwoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLPF+c49VlPJOw42C9vmz9O+a46/0/5xAc5DZVb9ALLqaqfE8J5tT/NbucbpTVMXEAFa1vS3q4TISmhfqvq
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.132.40 with SMTP id g40mr4279709iod.34.1465344528407; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 17:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.79.76.194 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BN3PR03MB2403FF7DAF6F11A6EA8FD2A4835D0@BN3PR03MB2403.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAN+BUJpZCHsAbf+6GOatOdw6Mq4R2asrKVjiOpivavCANLYMsA@mail.gmail.com> <BN3PR03MB2403FF7DAF6F11A6EA8FD2A4835D0@BN3PR03MB2403.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:08:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CABp8EuK=dYYD+mKc_=OWHbNRq-MLcg_XEOHg=_Y9Cm6OF8Gngg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com>
To: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/foN8eQmbq3ckcalU4zO054jUNTk>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>, Idel Pivnitskiy <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Different status codes for negative Push Message Receipts
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, 08 Jun 2016 00:08:52 -0000

I have also added comments to the issue, would it be more appropriate
to discuss it here?

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 6, 2016 3:56 PM, Idel Pivnitskiy <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've created an issue on GitHub, related to this discussion:
>> https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/110
>> Could be useful for an AS to know what happened with push message / UA.
>
>
> I’ve added my comments to the issue.
>
> Thanks,
> ...Brian
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webpush mailing list
> Webpush@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email