Re: [Webpush] Use Case related to subscription sets

Hervé Ruellan <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr> Mon, 11 January 2016 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
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 C373E1A870F for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:33:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 F8wqLwLG7tul for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:33:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from inari-msr.crf.canon.fr (inari-msr.crf.canon.fr [194.2.158.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4218F1A86F1 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 08:33:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mir-bsr.corp.crf.canon.fr (mir-bsr.corp.crf.canon.fr [172.19.77.99]) by inari-msr.crf.canon.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0BGXnSc006141; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:33:49 +0100
Received: from Antiope.crf.canon.fr (antiope.fesl2.crf.canon.fr [172.19.70.56]) by mir-bsr.corp.crf.canon.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0BGXmIX014798; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:33:48 +0100
Received: from timor.intra-usr.crf.canon.fr (172.20.4.44) by Antiope.crf.canon.fr (172.19.70.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:33:47 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Herv=c3=a9_Ruellan?= <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
To: Brian Raymor <brian.raymor@microsoft.com>
References: <564C50B7.7070505@crf.canon.fr> <CABp8EuLXNQWmc0mnt-m_vBQhPuhhef5GDgbrZdyM8TKUZv+GxQ@mail.gmail.com> <564EF895.4020200@crf.canon.fr> <CABp8Eu+OsXiEAsxOQpV_O-bF2o21upbJ14x8bCO=Y9TfgXOw2A@mail.gmail.com> <BY2PR0301MB06474FB76B480F37957A531A831A0@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <5652E2CD.8090709@crf.canon.fr> <CABp8EuKoWQ+JJdbqcTAge7wK=69P4M-e9kSZjoRW04yYvardUw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWkWt1=styBxLV6GiZ+D7kcryP3-2gm82T1b-Rv-UuF-g@mail.gmail.com> <BY2PR0301MB06470B1FAFD7C49000DAE3CF83070@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnUD=64yOuD=kP+2YFnFbftJY9nrT3f1aqCG3FR+y-++ug@mail.gmail.com> <5654AABC.3000000@crf.canon.fr> <BY2PR0301MB0647DF16F9FC3B177F8F4CB283F70@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <5693D96A.7000805@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:33:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR0301MB0647DF16F9FC3B177F8F4CB283F70@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.20.4.44]
X-ClientProxiedBy: Antiope.crf.canon.fr (172.19.70.62) To Antiope.crf.canon.fr (172.19.70.62)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/ihp7j2LZoZ0-O8GLhNOG-dNuEYk>
Cc: Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Use Case related to subscription sets
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: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:33:54 -0000

The PR brings a good solution for our use case of a client acting as a proxy. I've got no objections merging it, on the contrary.

Hervé

On 09/01/16 02:05, Brian Raymor wrote:
>
> Is there any further feedback on Martin's pull request?
>
> https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/67
>
> If there are no objections, I'd like to merge into the webpush draft early next week.
>
> ...Brian
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hervé Ruellan [mailto:herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 10:22 AM
> To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> Cc: Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com>om>; webpush@ietf.org; Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
> Subject: Re: [Webpush] Use Case related to subscription sets
>
> Thanks for the pull request.
>
> I find it a good compromise: it covers our use-case while still encouraging UA to reuse subscription sets.
>
> Hervé
>
> On 24/11/15 00:19, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > On 23 November 2015 at 13:46, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> Perhaps the combination of "user agent decides" with "push service *encourages*"
> >> by limiting concurrent HTTP/2 streams is the potential compromise.
> >
> > That's where I'm headed.  Though I'm also adding "spec *encourages*"
> > by using the word MUST.  I don't think that we get any gains for the
> > important scenarios if we don't provide at least some encouragement to
> > aggregate into a set.
> >
> > I've added text to the PR that explains what the push service might do
> > to punish user agents that don't allow for aggregation.  It's relying
> > on the same magical anti-DoS stuff again, which is hardly ever
> > perfect, but often adequate in practice.
> >
> > Here I expect that looking at the connection will work to catch
> > genuine but innocent mistakes.  The bad guys are always going to be
> > harder to pin down.
> >
>