IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Non-blocking comments on -05

Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> Fri, 03 June 2016 04:07 UTC

Return-Path: <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 552EF12D15C for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 21:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.com
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 wUf_aVPuZULF for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 21:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0129.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EED6512D11F for <webpush@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 21:07:52 -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=blH+CBdxcESgHEgYz9f3utoVwLLe+eSiz4dABXIu8qA=; b=leTz/vkp3cCFmHwHQ1kqM4/wuS37QbzzVr7t8+rLhoJAca1de9OcZhkUt4pScQQISw1mdXwcoim7WO1UpizIlS8o+VfMW+9aENQINCyML2eG6+18BN0MEqU1YMoSDF6J5L4MmINZ7hfu84PowpHwkOUwPYyqQbOH+2kzWQ6ZL90=
Received: from CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.93.137) by CO2PR03MB2405.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.93.135) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.506.9; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 04:07:51 +0000
Received: from CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.93.137]) by CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.93.137]) with mapi id 15.01.0506.011; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 04:07:51 +0000
From: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
To: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, "martin.thomson@gmail.com" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Webpush] Non-blocking comments on -05
Thread-Index: AQHRu3RQwDJq8LaJ6EaFkMQ0Dd4KCZ/Uf30AgADyW4CAAGIGAIABTcpw
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 04:07:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CO2PR03MB24070A435E4EE915DC6941FD83590@CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CALt3x6=_yc9TegOut_g+6W5fvhP7sfW+_gwRZnEVFA5PNgER6Q@mail.gmail.com> <6af49c2baf1b4e4f884b812d573b947e@Antiope.crf.canon.fr> <CABkgnnWebfxnPOLMXK+n+2G=c8DOG4Eb4AWMsWXJmmdnE4pUwg@mail.gmail.com> <1464854666.5342.6.camel@crf.canon.fr>
In-Reply-To: <1464854666.5342.6.camel@crf.canon.fr>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: crf.canon.fr; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; crf.canon.fr; dmarc=none action=none header.from=microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [24.16.23.27]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 288cf00a-3fa6-4074-e234-08d38b64a187
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CO2PR03MB2405; 5:0MsFkpFB68QVUkLHdPvS9E2hMSKTAT8khCFaV3Ra4baxUvfoD8U0qQDosBNB97sSnEzztTb8S/Uty+Sv+ovTldBYUG9/6ANk7zRrlHcKZO8pIk9pomEH/JLm13x2L91rSh0hyPuZLgcUndz8Y3nkYQ==; 24:w7fW3UCSQTTFIAM5JrUUydncdUZj8fCtHm8lGB7Ua1S2O0aNwvW6dLb3bZyySdxegw3ZoEQkzm4jUtwnSC3j83xzY5JUPHCC8lRhQOhBymQ=; 7:V5YyKGy6yAdaQ6AuqAVZMIeawu87sq3JZF1kiUfGNAovDQyFHqViGSjfEBLO0PzNuJ1IpOGAsv/E1AsF+I5Feq7UVmO9BvRmNj+eNVQXwv2b1naepjr9Orc9TLnlXaMsx6anq0A3iCAwVovHLq/XwTY/qmaJcQ1ykQsXeNaa64BqX566eOaC7ga1FI91GcKfXjfk6CJo1AmkIK4eLpeQVW0+4wveo1ghM8FzIQkYFf1YSmnoca7+l39a/asEgfmo
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO2PR03MB2405;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO2PR03MB2405C4ABFB42C682ABB3C09183590@CO2PR03MB2405.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863)(166708455590820)(211936372134217);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:CO2PR03MB2405; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO2PR03MB2405;
x-forefront-prvs: 0962D394D2
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51444003)(377424004)(13464003)(377454003)(24454002)(66066001)(76576001)(50986999)(3280700002)(54356999)(76176999)(33656002)(2501003)(2900100001)(74316001)(9686002)(4326007)(3660700001)(586003)(6116002)(93886004)(102836003)(2906002)(3846002)(2950100001)(5003600100002)(122556002)(92566002)(5002640100001)(10090500001)(19580395003)(11100500001)(189998001)(86362001)(81166006)(10290500002)(77096005)(15975445007)(8936002)(5008740100001)(8676002)(5005710100001)(106116001)(99286002)(5004730100002)(10400500002)(5001770100001)(87936001)(19580405001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR03MB2405; H:CO2PR03MB2407.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
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: 03 Jun 2016 04:07:51.0368 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO2PR03MB2405
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/ps29y_fi5k3_S1ypBWx6xUog868>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>, "beverloo@google.com" <beverloo@google.com>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Non-blocking comments on -05
X-BeenThere: webpush@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 03 Jun 2016 04:07:55 -0000

Please see my comments in  https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/95 and
https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/97 - which are both now closed.

We agreed that receipts "on demand" were required some time ago. I can certainly tighten up the language to
remove any ambiguity introduced by the use of Prefer: to simplify the flow. There was never
an intention or related discussion to make this feature optional. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Webpush [mailto:webpush-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of RUELLAN Herve
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 1:05 AM
To: martin.thomson@gmail.com
Cc: webpush@ietf.org; beverloo@google.com
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Non-blocking comments on -05

On Wed, 2016-06-01 at 23:34 +0000, Brian Raymor wrote:
> 2. What does a push server that receives a request for a push message
with "Prefer: respond-async"
> > but doesn't want to provide a receipt subscription, or doesn't
support providing receipts? Is this allowed in the first place?
> 
> The push service is required to support receipt subscriptions. 
> 
>    The push service MUST also provide a URI for the receipt 
>     subscription resource in a link relation of type 
>   "urn:ietf:params:push:receipt". 
> 

This sentence could be interpreted either as making support for receipt
subscriptions mandatory or as being a mandatory part of the 202
(Accepted) response, implying that the push service can also respond
with a 201 (Created) even when the Prefer header field is present.

On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 12:13 +1000, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 1 June 2016 at 21:46, RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr> wrote:
> > 2. What does a push server that receives a request for a push message with "Prefer: respond-async" but doesn't want to provide a receipt subscription, or doesn't support providing receipts? Is this allowed in the first place?
> 
> This is handled in RFC7240.  It ignores the Prefer header.  I believe
> that existing implementations do this very well :)

As two authors of the spec have divergent opinions, I think that a clear
statement would be helpful ;-).
I've created a pull request stating that support for push receipts is
not mandatory, but I've not strong opinion on the subject.

https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/95

Hervé
_______________________________________________
Webpush mailing list
Webpush@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email