IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Subscription Sets - Pull Request

Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> Fri, 23 October 2015 22:15 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 4C63B1B2D27 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:15:14 -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 Zk2x2u59V4Ds for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0775.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:775]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7F911B2D1C for <webpush@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:15:11 -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=vwVgcCQqfP0946IYD9NE6ewGDhY/9IzrV7HzxJVJ85c=; b=EdRaNT1WEQOZNUAR5Q6Qi8rHllnY/KIo4OzJOmkhjT3zkB3vM92XK444Uy0mlcXA+yLTDgoXhHp2pGBGtnrseZsU4b9/RyiUeBIKV8u1UJAlLRq5yGyUV5zfneXRnIPXZVJa6csAPDcUfwB2MeHXGBLRrLwtAgvVJH+aJOJCSBA=
Received: from BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.160.63.14) by BY2PR0301MB0646.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.160.63.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.306.13; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:14:50 +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 15.01.0306.003; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:14:50 +0000
From: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
To: Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com>
Thread-Topic: [Webpush] Subscription Sets - Pull Request
Thread-Index: AdENDOKqfSNDm5A+RAKdgWgblmEh8QAzFaWAAAAhp5A=
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:14:50 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR0301MB0647D49D1B6CBE630419022A83260@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BY2PR0301MB064742BE4C5A797250D3F19983270@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABp8EuKed6xwZ-dySt2jFpv7pxzAZtcMwo4o4AAaGyvuM-yt_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABp8EuKed6xwZ-dySt2jFpv7pxzAZtcMwo4o4AAaGyvuM-yt_Q@mail.gmail.com>
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: [2601:600:8000:5a8:a991:fd36:d5f3:19e]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR0301MB0646; 5:26MnhMyiUnPmiL/HKi3ZB/jWbb5cmkIvDAW+CMvC7h1uIKxsq/KNPAeEORTAMuUtXKteKNynYQV/wwn0dOHf+xqWwCMTo2kgAPdfMtAu7Ee5Notr158+amxjPXHcyTgnZQk/N3PuCFvTFFHR2j+GJQ==; 24:vhLXGFxNuHpeoebvlANt4D1cbUCd7bNxsJEYP2c3eQMg87/RSWBHaxFLZo/LCf8d44R6lnkrr8KY8Gy1Hs+Hzl7VhYhkbu7SM1jw+RkJh+g=; 20:7xcVx6hkm7yWt9u43iRs9j9J6sf42WbwGtlsxbMZ88wH9CqhtfbJPpJGy4+jCsqEbklrCztAtYxZ+XaCoJHuaQ==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(42140001); SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0646;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY2PR0301MB0646CE186E943EA42D5FC5FC83260@BY2PR0301MB0646.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425024)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(520078)(8121501046)(3002001)(102215026)(61426024)(61427024); SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0646; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0646;
x-forefront-prvs: 0738AF4208
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(24454002)(377454003)(189002)(199003)(5003600100002)(86612001)(10090500001)(189998001)(101416001)(74316001)(86362001)(87936001)(40100003)(5890100001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(33656002)(5002640100001)(105586002)(2900100001)(5008740100001)(76176999)(5001960100002)(81156007)(102836002)(54356999)(106356001)(122556002)(76576001)(50986999)(5005710100001)(11100500001)(10290500002)(92566002)(5004730100002)(5007970100001)(97736004)(10400500002)(8990500004)(15975445007)(2950100001)(99286002)(77096005)(110136002)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0646; H:BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A: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="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 Oct 2015 22:14:50.4397 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0301MB0646
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/mZZGgXZUuTGC1VMhIxAP_o_xlqk>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Subscription Sets - Pull Request
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: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:15:14 -0000

On October 23 2015 at 2:25 PM, Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com> wrote:

> re: SHOULD for using subscription set URL vs. subscription URL
> Could this be 'MUST'? 

Martin remembered that we discussed a redirect in Prague:
  https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/55. 

I'll update the pull request. 

> The PENDING section on how a server might know to attach new subscription requests
> to an existing subscription set could be resolved by requiring a client upon connecting
> to immediately request delivery of a notification set before asking for new subscriptions. 

That sounds like the registration step that we eliminated prior to publishing -00. As you've
suggested on list, the correlator could be the connection. It could also be some form of 
authentication. This may be dependent on the push service implementation.

> Martin points out that this could also be handled by having a client include a subscription
> set in the request. I like that approach as well.

We initially considered this approach in Prague, but discovered that it's fragile. For example, what happens if the client does not include the required subscription set link?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email