[Webpush] Replace term 'Application server'
Idel Pivnitskiy <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.com> Thu, 02 June 2016 12:33 UTC
Return-Path: <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.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 9147512D135
for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 05:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=gmail.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 GmuLozkHdHD9 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Thu, 2 Jun 2016 05:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22d.google.com (mail-io0-x22d.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22d])
(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 1802B12D187
for <webpush@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 05:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id p194so44765667iod.1
for <webpush@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 05:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=4rFf0NXJGwjYrkkxThGs1Ey1MmG0a20pVG5PeWbi27c=;
b=HmtTCfQLrsTAXDzUCrJjkN0Jtzd/UrjQHolH0UI/kacOOZvoU45fZgvCogGciyYzXr
UFxb0j/+ZejajE+cEkWeTqA3Ekuj7XRrebiAcF3vZ4BLkfgM3sN7OZn4lhs1iGeDrs6j
PY6Prw54gj0mNbwOIpPx5x+EM9IPFploB4QNKDKmVpZnrxCfn0E6qkLYqhXZwbNQPTSh
KYAIwANpc2EYEoQ0pveRoYdHtsYvS/N+m3Api859pvuljb1d0SueyKznX9gq7/W+gDXm
bPyJfzWsmF+BKdVwmzcZmdMO9laWzy8+5YI4sbYgobRltI8ti/Ql68Vhy7k++lxj5JSl
LciA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=4rFf0NXJGwjYrkkxThGs1Ey1MmG0a20pVG5PeWbi27c=;
b=Kpajl4oDwUsAB2sFINe06zo3LnV3NVdv8waZjCN+5yQ0+gJitmr05VL7al6ndLwkaa
ZTeu5kNq0LhV4aW4o04LG0Cn2vYpvflPQojKYzb7EsR1b9wtjAi03Dkk4FFvyh6xJPjM
bq2qA/Azv2QkgCA8C6JK+oNYzWtC129ClQ8S00PdojMk2r37E2OQof6rc1l77VW2v/Ar
WRAZRl0vVhQsHdOvRPR3tpw9Zk9B3tBaHHqq210iDpVrzEjuDzaQywVYDOeEXfjevql2
/1jVYXnD74D3oqwF5VuDcXzubodpQmHDWKNV6Ido+87N0Vr/wGGPb+RG+ymzYjwxz1K7
s/QA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tL4p2jTY2/VmYY6cKJX4PF3mM4X+HEt6lWth2ZvNQuU4LYIj7gaYxJ6ynUKUFO42L9thL7fBiyOW/rXJA==
X-Received: by 10.107.31.13 with SMTP id f13mr2814615iof.180.1464870778461;
Thu, 02 Jun 2016 05:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.36.43.197 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 05:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Idel Pivnitskiy <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:32:19 +0300
Message-ID: <CAN+BUJp8WqDDqeAZdDjxPNF-+2pwF1ossCP3zMraKbgxE8Oq6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: webpush@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141bbd464638205344acec1
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/r3UkXAzx0r6l5yYmb_xLiXcFUuQ>
Subject: [Webpush] Replace term 'Application server'
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: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 12:33:01 -0000
Hi all, Agree with Peter, that server side is not needed for communication: Nothing precludes an application from not needing a server side at all. I > don't think we should change the term, but perhaps we can consider > slightly rephrasing the definition as: > > "The component of an application that *usually* runs on a server and > requests the delivery of a push message." > Relevant commit: https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/90/commits/e0222007081cbf4c96e7c285d54154840d374b6d According to the rapid growth of IoT devices, WebPush protocol could get a popularity for power efficient M2M communications. In this case would be better not to fix client-server architecture/terms and use something like sender/receiver (or something similar) instead of AS/UA. Best regards, Idel Pivnitskiy -- Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy>
- [Webpush] Replace term 'Application server' Idel Pivnitskiy
- Re: [Webpush] Replace term 'Application server' Costin Manolache
- Re: [Webpush] Replace term 'Application server' Idel Pivnitskiy