Re: [Webpush] Subscription Sets - Pull Request

[Darshak Thakore <[e-mail]>]

I like the idea of keeping it as a strong recommendation instead of
mandating. 
There might be legitimate use cases (in IoT) where the client may want
multiple subscription sets.

Darshak

On 10/23/15, 9:17 PM, "Webpush on behalf of Martin Thomson"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>That's true, if the server is using limited concurrency, then the
>client will suffer for forgetting.  I think that the answer here is as
>we already have: a very strong recommendation to do what is necessary
>to reuse subscription sets.
>
>On 23 October 2015 at 16:49, Benjamin Bangert <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>> If the client fails to include it, then the server will make a new
>> subscription set. It's the clients problem that the simultaneous stream
>> limit is going to restrict it to listening to a single subscription set
>>at a
>> time if it wants a free command channel.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Martin Thomson
>><[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23 October 2015 at 15:14, Brian Raymor <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > 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?
>>>
>>> I don't think that's fragility, that's a feature.  If the server
>>> thinks that a user agent is acting badly and not including these
>>> links, it can (and should) limit the number of subscriptions it is
>>> willing to create on a given connection.
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Webpush mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush