IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-09

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 26 September 2016 04:48 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@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 67BE012B077 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 21:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, 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 M5kc2Iz4pSJv for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 21:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x231.google.com (mail-qk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231]) (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 8EB9312B069 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 21:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id n185so153728243qke.1 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 21:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rc6LdD2NCc+pRNjOUHpmcLpKiy2tdhJKCzYws2uz/PE=; b=HiQjr2SHcRwTCsLIjMkMqPaGV7KJBLMk61doaRcmOtht8sVf6rci+Qa/uWeSB0TCxg SxuwQwYsPQITorz3MOncEi9iF3SCbgKxdrEHFAIerQ5TCsLLTiU6DR0w6ftCehCEfOqM 5Q4gyTTiYg863a9epgK/PKdtis7SzodQfLylneDRrbogghQ0t1Q+s/ZQwLaGJft8nv0j zHYzWltlvgmuyAxpCoqkJrvLCbAEhtKRQNbbRVsOWldvIRzOfI3kQvBixeHH5tVyOoY4 mv736C82ePDj44oYg10w9gG3CDKhSdBhzazlRAV+LRmz8+Gri+KLJXLbeJxIVvHFn8V/ AIXw==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rc6LdD2NCc+pRNjOUHpmcLpKiy2tdhJKCzYws2uz/PE=; b=DADBEiM01dqGtVBbOZwJJWpVaKLicII7P3RdyFg9pm0dZJ5SbbVNrlCe38DWnLTfb4 xaseEF70FXxhMvOULjlrxSrVAqSyYbygR+jhSJSsAJtZAvjPkqxqrR2PFWe4UwG2aKI2 RYpyuF4iV7QcS8SufH2ZVXosE4sZZdzwhlnHEbRPzI9CBSzGkzlUjct+5tIET3Kue81c bbfLPQwETCwFa5FvvT8dYFSw7wodJCVtQkaOdQAldCwJSykOrEfJtkcNBAA9rMsC26Ip xKrOZPWBZV4hYyf5+xP04UeRokWW9VNAiBUnQrO3udqjZQUs69n4i/HDWFLo3eSc/SQx 42ag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rm3oBrKmF/WMi+p4pgQb5EHHKPpFfCyJYpNHxCpB2SmT3x568gygwuEiHEh+kxDPmq2jiy6JDeSDRu07w==
X-Received: by 10.55.113.197 with SMTP id m188mr19324715qkc.55.1474865317613; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 21:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.22.146 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Sep 2016 21:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXgA+c0KR5g7qC_U4Hdg=2QoeDpaCXY98nZQGqB1gcDfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E66EFF9-A0B5-4BB5-8F1D-0ABABBB3C353@cooperw.in> <CABkgnnXgA+c0KR5g7qC_U4Hdg=2QoeDpaCXY98nZQGqB1gcDfw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:48:37 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnX5o1jj3TOvX8Tb6PJmEVWrbXo-qi3cCGK9o8GATEbDng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/skirVIgDas2_QDf95OgDju7xeVo>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-09
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: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 04:48:40 -0000

I've create a pull request that includes the text below, plus fixes to
the other identified issues:

https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/pull/128

Preview at: https://webpush-wg.github.io/webpush-protocol/alissa_review/

On 23 September 2016 at 14:54, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for reviewing Alissa,
>
> The other comments look like they have mechanical fixes.  We will get to that.
>
> On 22 September 2016 at 13:25, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
>> = Section 5.4 =
>>
>> "Delivery receipts for the deleted message
>>    SHOULD be suppressed."
>>
>> Why is this a SHOULD rather than a MUST? It seems incorrect in all cases to send a delivery receipt for a message that never gets delivered.
>
> I realize that this is actually too short to be comprehensible.  What
> I think that this was trying to capture was that sometimes replaced
> messages might be delivered successfully, but the acknowledgment might
> be still in transit toward the server.  That acknowledgement could
> trigger a delivery receipt.
>
> This recommends that receipts be suppressed in this case.  They might
> not be given the distributed nature of the push service.
> (Acknowledgments might be handled in a stateless fashion, and checking
> that a replacement has occurred can be expensive; preventing the race
> adds cost and latency also.)
>
>>>>
> A push message replacement request creates a new push message resource
> and simultaneously deletes any existing message resource that has a
> matching topic. If an attempt was made to deliver the deleted push
> message, an acknowledgment could arrive at the push service after the
> push message has been replaced.  Delivery receipts for such deleted
> messages SHOULD be suppressed.
> <<<

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email