IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Alternate/fallback mechanism for receiving

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Sun, 21 February 2016 00:02 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 E22181B2BEE for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:02:53 -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 YBboND6VcuCL for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:02:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (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 885101B2BED for <webpush@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:02:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-x230.google.com with SMTP id xg9so56930837igb.1 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:02:52 -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; bh=THLIN8ER4xBXrvJ2qNSrmdUEnEYqZ9NWIkRC+QEnUoE=; b=FkkzzPBNEPIVqcxalYoKXr+yPbQWmUAA5OSyRZIsqyWvpEmzhSkm8rQ9BSgYwrXHlx O4ty3DY8rJRjUJq94YEI9K7Q3uekNIpPs2oJCEArCbA1obDG/ZJSJ3xwvrcE48s+naOb w00Be1q6hYsz6cAOQFAlxhig3Xb/q1S1hCfdpnzkGPWOl7pfU1SyMH4XzpY0fV9XTqQp V824gSI6RuZ06/rGqSHf2wBG27iFjw3Ns2adSDW5WOgj5QQb0gD4Oq3f1QLMciySZspf fm4hNFapQUn0LazCXJcDJuDU3+NBER6O+mEAj8s7YJrpAIjscyUL339QVrGRghJLwjPi P/5Q==
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; bh=THLIN8ER4xBXrvJ2qNSrmdUEnEYqZ9NWIkRC+QEnUoE=; b=KOC695JW0CMQRdN3392+4nwD7X1PnjS4Gyhn8q05eN20g0v/CUnDinqztuCEKF4PSx 2E2yU5zdqUW/oN0My8FT7j/8eB+4n2KtIMrOtiIMEO0+LH48HVyA4DEzQebUGIvLjvuN eub+w2Am4N5tbP/vvQVzpwvsdEJ4wauvBIhDlmqOSF5ObhMzi0TlCDZXjE7ws6lPzkkY Q5Es0936qSYBG1+rmfgsQ2cAApKoW0OXPwLMdv9p35YthfLIgdpLgJKiOzoh7B2nwQJt SKQPpo7kBEdWsJIW/ySEAJEiC/BHv2X+cziCVlJeYqvZylke3Nv2D/DFfXwxwbHkD0mi y56w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTz0FThtqZ1tgPu21Qb/88iWWRGCizQiobwoaPTz+i8/eT1FTqebF3KRaXwqOoL+sKyAkIN7C8m6/MQnA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.6.104 with SMTP id z8mr4238614igz.58.1456012971969; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:02:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.53.79 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:02:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAP8-Fq=TYTzAVtt7P+bsQ78R=LWwvhPRaTJc=7GXOD06ByKdFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP8-Fq=TYTzAVtt7P+bsQ78R=LWwvhPRaTJc=7GXOD06ByKdFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:02:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWaPxnHX9pvhep24sajk+grUJXwxk8wt1jfreZM9fvocQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/pHoEQUsN3yNTGQDEg85j-WKvDXg>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Alternate/fallback mechanism for receiving
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 00:02:54 -0000

Why not just implement a proprietary protocol?

On 20 February 2016 at 08:59, Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know this may be a bit controversial, and I love both HTTP/2 and push
> promises :-)
>
> However, to make it easier to implement/test/deploy, would it be possible to
> add a small
> change to sections 7, 7.1 and 7.3:
>
> 'if http/2 or push promises are not supported on a platform, the PS will
> return
> a mime-multipart response to the GET request, with the same content as the
> push promise'
>
> Nothing else needs to be changed - just instead of a push promise frame, it
> will be a mime part.
> A UA or PS can support only http/2 - but some may optionally also support
> the multipart
> response, and accept requests as http/1.1.
>
> While many HTTP/2 stacks are now available, the APIs for push promises are
> not very familiar
> or well exposed.
>
> This is a problem in particular for receipts, since the AS to PS
> communication has to be implemented
> by many developers. It will also help in the case of UA to PS, low-end IOT
> devices tend to lack
> http/2 support.
>
> Costin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webpush mailing list
> Webpush@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email