Re: [Webpush] 202 (Accepted) and simplifying acknowledgements
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Sun, 21 February 2016 20:03 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 514861A8FD5
for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 12:03:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 Iv9PtlviLK99 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Sun, 21 Feb 2016 12:03:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22b.google.com (mail-ig0-x22b.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22b])
(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 106181A9152
for <webpush@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 12:03:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id y8so73040705igp.0
for <webpush@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 12:03:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=UQx2CbGjvCZezZuhPRl2GeOvOJZlei+kmovJucPBguU=;
b=hynh0Ca4K7+LCH2U2HT2MqWw2gCWckKfI13jbpPbz/8txpcmrFKX1p2Ny9hsHZ0VOk
iqhjgcH5gd7dM4Cyv9EmY26QjKjh1yXanA7oXXE/twCg8TvpRXL86lUxlMI60yShgZjn
RtddwkRavxQe3MTn/sUK/CdEeSv8A5nibOEvlHlQrvDDcDaMtL+onn3O6G2ttgHdpMzr
gmGwUlyt7MCgPi4be6VmFcZMABmGeo/VVOQydvt6WPm1DmKo8wTR6BwDaQbPl15rQYvz
qju6nQLTDk6QmmCAfQcrnAjYWmZ4T8hEBTET+JVc/MBjjIqzD5PrlfKiZY6f6QN4wCLB
9+Lg==
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-type;
bh=UQx2CbGjvCZezZuhPRl2GeOvOJZlei+kmovJucPBguU=;
b=ZZavRxIRiLFBc5RMDIv9xxp5Fng2TpiTiA5q0PtaXV5GSi+fGOfatmky1IXAFPU5XC
cLl0FRt5qtP6wDKrqvNU5gly37uUFN/m6b/BuzGdNpPYwJi7hcN5kvP4cbT0OHIiIIqm
xdkhxj/Yf3fsh5hxFxFqljd8Xy5o1uY/ZZQ3qifTi45JxJ3Nuhis7s//C8L7gGBoTrVc
pJFP/y17DigjtZL3X4u9dD1jTHxuMuK9k9oHiPjAInDVYYLFPrv9OJozKpgZ5C9752Cx
jLhY7qGwvCYHg2oHP44M6xEUzD3ZYg2c+gUKOpVloOH0AjPg0G5UD8Rp6h3BxIU/2rZo
HMyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQPh9XqlkFuuwG88C9uuFO6AEDLkD0TBJ27dKEdPdmzRE94imh88BcvIbNVJ5moU3ASEvhqnPq7r5cnhg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.131.227 with SMTP id op3mr1021713igb.94.1456085017381;
Sun, 21 Feb 2016 12:03:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.53.79 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 12:03:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR0301MB06475638E9DE5D87782E71C783A00@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BY2PR0301MB06475638E9DE5D87782E71C783A00@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 12:03:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVG-vzri-QuYYecs8=7t+qc0PVns6SKqLEvuW8Tzrn7mg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/j9S2AnDcd_5oKlxWKVTSQB5-CCo>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] 202 (Accepted) and simplifying acknowledgements
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: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:03:39 -0000
On 19 February 2016 at 12:26, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> wrote: > A more natural flow could use 202 (Accepted) with the :push:receipt as the "status monitor". I realize that I forgot one of the original reasons for the existing design. A design like you propose was considered, but not adopted because it creates a race condition. The acknowledgment races the request that the application server makes to the receipt resource. However, if your assertion is that TTL:0 messages will not be acknowledged, and that all other messages require that the push service persist the acknowledgments as well as the messages themselves, I think that this is probably OK. TTL:1 and maybe other small values are probably a little risky, but a simple caveat might suffice.
- [Webpush] 202 (Accepted) and simplifying acknowle… Brian Raymor
- Re: [Webpush] 202 (Accepted) and simplifying ackn… Costin Manolache
- Re: [Webpush] 202 (Accepted) and simplifying ackn… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Webpush] 202 (Accepted) and simplifying ackn… Brian Raymor
- Re: [Webpush] 202 (Accepted) and simplifying ackn… Brian Raymor
- Re: [Webpush] 202 (Accepted) and simplifying ackn… Costin Manolache
- Re: [Webpush] 202 (Accepted) and simplifying ackn… Martin Thomson