IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Webpush] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-09

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 22 September 2016 03:25 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 9BA5312B618 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=gwPdp8B+; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=JnYXmO/H
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 OMjt3pBJ4osk for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7765C12B280 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 20:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710802063D for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 23:25:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 23:25:35 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=6kb gmaXPPhvaFReFBs31vSbVRmQ=; b=gwPdp8B+3LhGqcFB89iAK2nsOnqACvBssAF ySQ+PXihSxbyzBo7u3AV0L79yMH31Q61D5uQOrkcQgUjvMhPFVDw5EUCPTxRk3rV 0tEcedRRfpTzVZ1ZEZvN26+SIzjdzkMg7yYHzybi8YJb1AQwSLGx7PitM5JI9xzu aUiGvN8E=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=6kbgmaXPPhvaFReFBs31vSbVRmQ=; b=JnYXm O/HN7M1sniKUcu5l6+xbrPNMurAOqQBjxwbg7XszTP5G8pDsg0XzsJBAENb1+PBu J9Zbncv+MWb1j060xMGS/dQOB4/RNj1QhsqdBOMplFdzkW32U2rlVTk0Bse4xntv NTCAQoMnsM/uvg7ONMLHfW0F4XTZmVHdzLp8f4=
X-Sasl-enc: N/xDUATM999sin97W0CSSMfze7KbC567Kd7Yc5Ws3nID 1474514735
Received: from sjc-alcoop-8812.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.182]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DDDCBF2985 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 23:25:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1E66EFF9-A0B5-4BB5-8F1D-0ABABBB3C353@cooperw.in>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 23:25:33 -0400
To: webpush@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/i1oXElMKGO1hxpoj0yNl6bqmObc>
Subject: [Webpush] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-09
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: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 03:25:40 -0000

I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. It is almost ready to go. I have a few comments below. Once these are resolved and a rev published, I will request publication.

= Shepherd write-up =

RFC 2818 is in the downref registry already. That is the only explanation necessary for the downref.

= Section 5.3 =

I'm assuming the application scenarios listed in the table are illustrative since they do not cover every possible application. It would be good to note that.

= Section 5.4 =

"Delivery receipts for the deleted message
   SHOULD be suppressed."

Why is this a SHOULD rather than a MUST? It seems incorrect in all cases to send a delivery receipt for a message that never gets delivered.

= Section 8 =

I think the first paragraph should include a normative recommendation to follow the guidance in RFC 7525 for use of TLS.

= Section 8.2 =

I think it would be useful to acknowledge in this section that while correlation using push URIs can be limited in the various ways described, correlation based on other information exposed by user agents may still be possible.

= Section 9.3 =

The Contact should be IETF Chair (per RFC 6335).

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email