IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> Mon, 26 September 2016 21:54 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 7980612B350 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.022
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.022 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_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 q9NBE2OyqntV for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam03on0099.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.42.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BA1712B2AC for <webpush@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=W97+R7bD7OYngzlfVYgmH/86ZOzMtyMW9yiW5XG/haU=; b=Dsp1pKGth3z689eXdq94gbdHYvT4gDbSvg6ndThrPEZfcUfTN+exiiLkU35NyvxWKnRbORqmOI97Oww8Cw73eV3zolssH9XwbgUAGomqpW0TTZ5WIk/4zgiqj33DfeRG89lG1XigzjjR3I7fPF1DahITUMWpm8g/PAkOQeqCt1Y=
Received: from CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.167.8.6) by CY1PR03MB2379.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.166.207.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.639.5; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:54:30 +0000
Received: from CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.8.6]) by CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.8.6]) with mapi id 15.01.0629.018; Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:54:30 +0000
From: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Webpush] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-09
Thread-Index: AQHSFIEBkzsAu1vtm0+tmHqetkXrFKCGhAiAgAS1coCAANpQgIAARBLA
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:54:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CY1PR03MB238090F102BF375C5AAD1DAA83CD0@CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1E66EFF9-A0B5-4BB5-8F1D-0ABABBB3C353@cooperw.in> <CABkgnnXgA+c0KR5g7qC_U4Hdg=2QoeDpaCXY98nZQGqB1gcDfw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnX5o1jj3TOvX8Tb6PJmEVWrbXo-qi3cCGK9o8GATEbDng@mail.gmail.com> <F171EE4B-C95C-47D6-A3AA-CAEDB04D490F@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <F171EE4B-C95C-47D6-A3AA-CAEDB04D490F@cooperw.in>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [92.54.160.246]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 039c3764-304c-4923-91ae-08d3e657b17d
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR03MB2379; 6:iJA0Q97xMmycX4uAGs9T7BJ7znX2dECjGX1W0uVVYmmbGSYMhXZzX6egWuFOBBwBIawkC9GrQEy7VAO0eusUoPOtJQV4R/OxeTnglMOwv4PKgIb1WJkZVp1rRhSWlkQ9PTOacdz+ytMAL2Y1J4eWJxCj7vyj7NHI2CrToCDBmMUCN9LGRoUiNJaXWg7NirTKv9HDoxXrrhx4oeIBe5QJTV+lPkLQBfTsvkxzVUwXqyYsDgFq4JT0/uyDs9Uhtq+u0JsVaZ6tAwhAG0h+MaJNpQX9H1M5lTrz93kY+yvq1MjbUc+Uu/wGNPr8upjbnZf8m37mv77nYtQO7qUTg8L0gA==; 5:CxtrnJXg4IsXJbvylxUeG0CPy5y6sCRMKHmPqm/tSqHLw4iGTn5fMsdtgx60aWzL61NypegDHF6B546qrYrhTZ1ezC5NKjsLixdjCEC5a77/0yMqWoVI8g2Q08Av5VsiGqJAVTRzWdgeCXATnfXbhA==; 24:SS8mx90IBRI98Hrl5bZcndUtmmJsgjRqCKZjFApK7bqDT3iTHrGdGZvzS6ygsPLxnuOLl449xHQg3tdWaJi0qWCsqRJdTC+G4RyjjBHysvk=; 7:6uX/khf6mKkt7lQAFSBq4VjS/1Zux3VA6U90I7BiEGSsL9QuId4MgFa5uHOs5bnHyX3KuVM9nU0UtRtdCbMw5gslcDgZpIbMk7R2QUq92X7nvFFovhYYj2a0xEaHke2k5piqtvxi2OTsCBDOPuSteqfqP/7AvGioo7ocyN6RsWHWUSGa5seXJpANInYRNcoxsPj0sJnrd55kPjHThMzGxpDpn0+k2qpc9v794faPBZ3UFnXHXnI2FsJo7+EpO/7ubQeDw5/tyyZFDuyiLT1dlSWdxyi6zqYhPYVBFkXiBD+5cGHN7SLtCxBOwU5Qz2jg
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR03MB2379;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY1PR03MB237919646A8C576F0E9DD75283CD0@CY1PR03MB2379.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(166708455590820);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:CY1PR03MB2379; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR03MB2379;
x-forefront-prvs: 00770C4423
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(199003)(13464003)(54534003)(24454002)(189002)(51444003)(377454003)(189998001)(9686002)(19580395003)(19580405001)(2900100001)(105586002)(93886004)(99286002)(106356001)(305945005)(106116001)(7736002)(7846002)(97736004)(101416001)(66066001)(11100500001)(8936002)(122556002)(5001770100001)(7696004)(5002640100001)(586003)(50986999)(54356999)(3660700001)(76176999)(10090500001)(74316002)(3280700002)(3846002)(86612001)(102836003)(6116002)(5660300001)(2906002)(15975445007)(76576001)(8990500004)(68736007)(87936001)(77096005)(2950100002)(33656002)(81166006)(86362001)(81156014)(4326007)(5005710100001)(92566002)(8676002)(230783001)(10400500002)(10290500002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR03MB2379; H:CY1PR03MB2380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Sep 2016 21:54:30.2720 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR03MB2379
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/tk0zhQEQF1i0ccbSv5OQLmvZM50>
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 21:54:34 -0000

I've merged Martin's PR, updated the change log, and published webpush-10.

-----Original Message-----
From: Webpush [mailto:webpush-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 6:50 PM
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: webpush@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Webpush] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-09

LGTM

> On Sep 26, 2016, at 12:48 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
>> <<<

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email