IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Status Code for Negative Acknowledgements #49

Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> Thu, 15 October 2015 04:45 UTC

Return-Path: <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEECA1B303D for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 21:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 EMmHJtlu5Hz0 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 21:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0707.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::707]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF5651B303F for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 21:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=iCv9dyTMcxB+ECNgNBN6IA/0y50tdGV7V74zbIC4a10=; b=NKKdwY3wHhgudy93z6q6hDH1qHh9bZTnkaSVBnIEd3X6/jnFxClrgfv2R7vn2QEzn1Uj5n/rWHE2zik5zuUV8mFjGMRCWBRrA7wG3erUrUnP/HwPb78vYx+8zdE1VPtYd4smFcBRnCB5BLrIiiRDw/yUcGSR6hmKm6ltKFiEJa0=
Received: from BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.160.63.14) by BY2PR0301MB0645.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.160.63.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.293.16; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 04:45:01 +0000
Received: from BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.63.14]) by BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.63.14]) with mapi id 15.01.0293.007; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 04:45:01 +0000
From: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Thread-Topic: [Webpush] Status Code for Negative Acknowledgements #49
Thread-Index: AdEG9sQd5oxkv1u9Tbuu6yssrGPvWQAAxM4AAAFyNyA=
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 04:45:01 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR0301MB0647A13237BC4AD8BDA37B57833E0@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BY2PR0301MB0647B9C0BBAA6E4CAC9057F2833E0@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <B48B008D-0C4D-40FC-BF7B-8D090B0B97D3@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <B48B008D-0C4D-40FC-BF7B-8D090B0B97D3@mnot.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [73.42.172.77]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR0301MB0645; 5:d/iqE50RuE5Huw4NmW8bWEuNzxArsy1CsAmXFadXc1sDhyjksRDphFJ/6MRQr8P1wsU7vIm+7A7lDFr/6KaZsU/TT4BcHtvCr7J4658Wsrz2wfGYNcvAuFoV29q0QNEcslSA2+YkZ88VQnz9EdsqOg==; 24:cNsKl3BWMc02KRCfmVxDvEb19iMuvi6kMVMApPhB4USBJMfvtZujRjN0NLKX8Fa20lbPGqUtUy5yD/w3LiYt+yxeHko8jsj5T/D6yTcyfUU=; 20:tZBh0B02Dk7p3CflFMepw7VeokykV0kXRKRB14N/LVtl9mR4TNkRXUSSG6lS6wbVR8ekapyzDPk5+zigoXIJmw==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0645;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY2PR0301MB06457DC68E632B1EA50082B3833E0@BY2PR0301MB0645.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425024)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(520078)(3002001)(61426024)(61427024); SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0645; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0645;
x-forefront-prvs: 0730093765
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(979002)(6009001)(377454003)(199003)(189002)(24454002)(10290500002)(561944003)(40100003)(50986999)(189998001)(19580395003)(122556002)(5007970100001)(81156007)(64706001)(97736004)(110136002)(2900100001)(33656002)(15975445007)(77096005)(86362001)(2950100001)(86612001)(92566002)(10090500001)(5004730100002)(5003600100002)(8990500004)(76176999)(5001960100002)(102836002)(5002640100001)(105586002)(46102003)(101416001)(5005710100001)(76576001)(106356001)(11100500001)(54356999)(99286002)(19580405001)(74316001)(5008740100001)(66066001)(10400500002)(87936001)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0645; H:BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Oct 2015 04:45:01.2952 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0301MB0645
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/goKaLzr5TyEkFCUZbRc_xamA16s>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Status Code for Negative Acknowledgements #49
X-BeenThere: webpush@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 04:45:12 -0000

On October 14 2015 at 8:31 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> I'm especially concerned about suggestions in the issue to allocate "a range of
> status codes" for this purpose.

Let me clarify. There are two issues:

https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/49 (Status Code for Negative Acknowledgements) is related to the proposal for the 512 status code under discussion.

https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/42 (Acknowledgement 'status codes') is the source of the confusion about "a range of status codes"? I completely agree that the title (even with those single quotes) is misleading. The intent is to NOT use HTTP status codes to return information for this scenario. If developed further, it will probably need to be a header field since it's passed in a DELETE. (It's closer in nature to the opaque diagnostic data that can be included in a HTTP/2 GOAWAY.) I've clarified the title and text in the issue to reflect our true intentions.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email