IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Alternate/fallback mechanism for receiving

Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> Sun, 21 February 2016 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <costin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: webpush@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836B61B2F07 for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:22:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Zze9A_ASSOqI for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:22:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22d.google.com (mail-ob0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::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 73B401B2F05 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:22:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id xk3so141894821obc.2 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:22:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=bbzEvHI0BTPyGLXOIhDRmD56lmTMz2IN3hztm3KwUxE=; b=Y2iIzV5iIO03xL7+F8vcBBK+mjey5pDMbhUvaPlUhKy7Lm/1EQUqC7O/PuTkLdpEYR csVA1rHHW+cqtYbTX6c2NYIQ8z1/02oNxcy4P3Eu89YBlcDGVJgA2Wakug/5M8kL1pNX 36tVK2ZOpig9LLjAh+JjuECDXoDIfGD8xjWFLsx9D1kR4Zy6XXNVA7VqnUiLzLtwwQT0 bbjAXbn1rlriLtzX/quHlcYU4je00k22ipkR/lzzKa7XVz/wQyzn8byo3U23wqHpcywv cn2TNYsa62YfaiVx1xJc1VDnDEuCpF6HnQMzZiVLZtMO1uJy4c1KewPfPbzjGIc69o52 Vj9g==
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bbzEvHI0BTPyGLXOIhDRmD56lmTMz2IN3hztm3KwUxE=; b=Z3SfLqmJqumIyRlODfnP59tS5kkwnN0PoDiRHVodjBRe+3/zdDsjA1k8UAZZ8Acb/h E2x62uL6zu/S7v3Ymqrhxsb9WqctmbwA0EJk8l8ggA/lzhzXh4Wq7BCq9VNI1MG6SmG8 B52PQ65XCBGX5anjSJ+PMNZYA288pDn4EMUC4wOasXTuHNxij107E0XXXOqkImOaHC7X i3fGa5go2jHY3fb5bqICKFYi2r+i2pckMcd1ZoVCH1Q0GnY4y4PmMpWQV/FPxzaeGZyW CEcCTbMmkmzewxDXGR2MQgP8rIfSfYliVpECxerHTNgCSTRFhcMw12zNMuDKMWH+UpPq +E9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORPxVR1JSggivccBkQTVUUPIgFyZmjSqaKJ6ehhrkgFSUeKwG5d6yYQWzw5MFoyesYN6YpSa0j592DojQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.226.134 with SMTP id rs6mr18248478oec.69.1456024963833; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:22:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.75.35 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:22:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWaPxnHX9pvhep24sajk+grUJXwxk8wt1jfreZM9fvocQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP8-Fq=TYTzAVtt7P+bsQ78R=LWwvhPRaTJc=7GXOD06ByKdFw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWaPxnHX9pvhep24sajk+grUJXwxk8wt1jfreZM9fvocQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 03:22:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CAP8-FqkWa7xm4tdT+U-mBOVjU1hAeGwYTt3WKWLa1X6dGr9sbA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1136a220c0e6c1052c3f3a44
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/vP5CI9SLEkEJkeiJsDpERZHuLfI>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Alternate/fallback mechanism for receiving
X-BeenThere: webpush@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 03:22:46 -0000

We already implement an alternate protocol for receipts - based on XMPP,
so not even 'proprietary' :-)

The benefit of having a fallback in webpush standard is that it makes it
easier
for AS to adopt - it is a small extra effort for the PS, but big benefit
for many AS.
Compatibility with existing infrastructure - and backward compatibility in
general -
are good for any protocol. Webpush sending is defined as HTTP/1.1,
subscription and
 delete are HTTP/1.1 compatible - it's only receipts that require push
promises, with
no backward option.

Does anyone have a survey of platforms and APIs supporting push promises ?
Most that I know require custom HTTP implementations, even the
library/platform
supports HTTP/2, promises are not usually exposed and/or well
documented/understood.

Costin


On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Why not just implement a proprietary protocol?
>
> On 20 February 2016 at 08:59, Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I know this may be a bit controversial, and I love both HTTP/2 and push
> > promises :-)
> >
> > However, to make it easier to implement/test/deploy, would it be
> possible to
> > add a small
> > change to sections 7, 7.1 and 7.3:
> >
> > 'if http/2 or push promises are not supported on a platform, the PS will
> > return
> > a mime-multipart response to the GET request, with the same content as
> the
> > push promise'
> >
> > Nothing else needs to be changed - just instead of a push promise frame,
> it
> > will be a mime part.
> > A UA or PS can support only http/2 - but some may optionally also support
> > the multipart
> > response, and accept requests as http/1.1.
> >
> > While many HTTP/2 stacks are now available, the APIs for push promises
> are
> > not very familiar
> > or well exposed.
> >
> > This is a problem in particular for receipts, since the AS to PS
> > communication has to be implemented
> > by many developers. It will also help in the case of UA to PS, low-end
> IOT
> > devices tend to lack
> > http/2 support.
> >
> > Costin
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Webpush mailing list
> > Webpush@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webpush
> >
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email