Re: [Webpush] Use Case related to subscription sets

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 23 November 2015 23:20 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 275E91B352E for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:20:02 -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 lmwlvh4GwuRc for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:20:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::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 8EB461B352C for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:20:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iofh3 with SMTP id h3so3085149iof.3 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:20:00 -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=ds9FKDQh/bF3fLzfY1cAZxAYahbczvQG4YEgljlqvyk=; b=tOOJ6bZIqay8kiSKZ1VXA1DpamYorkkgTuo3R5mOjFWgvkKCU2SF1FzbQs1dew2BRe FE0wQqcdr5yROuhZoqh7B/gnj4fR4e5Ckh2j9bGBqBBZoKbPp5XWdoGgmBqrNkOnsmdd +mym8Eh1DG1L5PKikPAPwvrH/lv+eyM2uSb0TKHkrTq/yAQdCgZjQmw6nPLG4h43YYH8 sHJ0TaUHX1EkEuor7an7Rf1GHkCO4usvhTE8OXCq3VOWLZx9htr9pncV2u3YOneFLoYE gCZ2Zb59qg2BJimhdLEAWzxQp6V0lq5KbWFT/qbE0zrgb+0hYAg6xEd76ixASFcmQk3w UVvA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.26.144 with SMTP id a138mr15155260ioa.100.1448320799909; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:19:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.155.139 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:19:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR0301MB06470B1FAFD7C49000DAE3CF83070@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.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>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:19:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUD=64yOuD=kP+2YFnFbftJY9nrT3f1aqCG3FR+y-++ug@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/nrv3lG9s5rp1Gqp7yZkeRz7atbI>
Cc: Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com>, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Herv=C3=A9_Ruellan?= <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
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, 23 Nov 2015 23:20:02 -0000

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.