IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 03 June 2016 23:16 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 2760A12D8D8 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:16:49 -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 boGeYowCUZ-9 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:16:46 -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 6A8FC12D624 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id s186so29232691qkc.1 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 16:16:36 -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=pMn2vpHQW6vfebYQHWkxKwi+u4/2UVYaW5iHeVlsuf0=; b=Ti+T3l5Q1+a8CxbC26B7r7+U8EPIIhDD2aW6GSVjb4f3Fd5AQz+J5Iuwa/y6hpzalS 9sIfaXrsI6/JCQ2boeCk3T6O3rHnmkH75ICrxfhkJdJN8FdoUgi19v5aGXiN1R7mvPdt 91i6lJ4G3FSrkbXBNEfGSw3kfV4x1mFozrQgYba2Z3NGZVk172VIqL1faCbJ3tUcU5EO t1J2CV5b4h7pbPyYpPpA4qwDNZW+pewM4DW9OjSVcb1FcFyPrLnJZac90A59hjiwZIE2 W4QoWlwCvdfUYzzYIqGU3nLMqUdXObn5ye5Oj9QzJtelr0ozxgkuOxHO+MYzEnWGEQgu 0DSw==
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=pMn2vpHQW6vfebYQHWkxKwi+u4/2UVYaW5iHeVlsuf0=; b=hNq7uBALQCgeKI0s1PLv9HvNESF0wwKdqfmGzFsS78dlpjnuGYuNV/YrX+QOR9RavT UjXyCAfGl1Yg0QlS2bR7NRH7bYFmYsjrPw1FMzCEOP6e0lhEdxwSh0rXMw7veulOFbVO BZk/Rz55Y7HywI3tpco89tal5qcUKBYl9WXU8tapll7JVSHhRtptP3O+vHWQZrU81mT5 5mCflb01RTzyEb8tpOpm7s1sWEjltE8Js80z/xgav0Zlf+OiynY4OV6GAkm1hRwwSO0J KOhtbXvtM2OLh6F+NmJVtChb6gZg1WdpIRTl2Zosz4wSStAsrTaZvx1xNFqnEqOO6P86 CjOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIj2mM48hauYNlhRYuBiZv130kr8YXfGgTfdr+1jL/UdRCCO/93gV+RA27jBYl4S7a1QccuCQURptdO/g==
X-Received: by 10.55.135.7 with SMTP id j7mr5713767qkd.32.1464995795568; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 16:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.104.110 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP8-Fq=ccph+RcKH9byKD6f-05zHYkUvMVG=OR=4=rq06dc7DA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALt3x6=_yc9TegOut_g+6W5fvhP7sfW+_gwRZnEVFA5PNgER6Q@mail.gmail.com> <6af49c2baf1b4e4f884b812d573b947e@Antiope.crf.canon.fr> <CABkgnnWebfxnPOLMXK+n+2G=c8DOG4Eb4AWMsWXJmmdnE4pUwg@mail.gmail.com> <989D9268-BE9A-47F7-9181-C0F323D1DA1F@mozilla.com> <CAP8-Fq=ccph+RcKH9byKD6f-05zHYkUvMVG=OR=4=rq06dc7DA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 09:16:34 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUYH7b1N-QKs5JVuYpZGBhrQqt9cQ+Vt7LeHuLY_+LR9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/un2D0le_-BYVsmBMn6Qv8HdVhGU>
Cc: Kit Cambridge <kcambridge@mozilla.com>, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>, Peter Beverloo <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 23:16:49 -0000

On 4 June 2016 at 00:56, Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In section 7.2, could we consider allowing push servers to reject messages
>> < 4k? If the PS is proxying the message to a third-party server, which
>> Mozilla's server does on iOS and Android, it might not be able to control
>> the size limit.
>
>
> +1


Do either of you want to recommend an alternative limit?  The limit
exists so that application servers can send messages of a certain size
without having to worry that they will be told to go away.  That's a
useful property to maintain.  However, if there are practical limits
that make 4k too hard, please pick a more realistic limit.  Is it 2k?
Less?

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email