IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Webpush] Niceness or urgency of messages #28

Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> Sat, 20 February 2016 06:01 UTC

Return-Path: <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.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 D82541A6F9D for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 22:01:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 fxMeiviv_mKN for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 22:01:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0724.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::724]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83DEE1A0119 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 22:01:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=L5qnrNZTGLiadMRQtkMUG7/bBz9GovSeGzL06zrAfuw=; b=F9FkF1byKnp1gc/2K3oeTYN5bJ71SkmLVmjgC84/Nev6+Ui2hHDBoxZc9gMssurAebNhbdu8HpVP+RwoGliZGtJ6oPOwIDxJ5+8LVCMYagPvQ/w4WHG/TfkXIpYeE50qkRgVI8Y/n5zy+PJ0JeeWZ3MoWJLV0DjjjKFT/gQuMz0=
Received: from BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.160.63.14) by BY2PR0301MB0648.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.160.63.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.409.15; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 06:00:56 +0000
Received: from BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.63.14]) by BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.63.14]) with mapi id 15.01.0409.017; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 06:00:57 +0000
From: Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Webpush] Niceness or urgency of messages #28
Thread-Index: AdFrgAu+FvNRL8bUQpm4q78Kji7quQABytgAAAZwu/A=
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 06:00:56 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR0301MB0647DF1FD1AA7978EC35ACD183A10@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BY2PR0301MB064784ED9A344BB1BF50D10B83A10@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnXMpLiXFd7EgHq1DvGQ88SAVbn=0+YFDS1FHA3pvS8P=A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXMpLiXFd7EgHq1DvGQ88SAVbn=0+YFDS1FHA3pvS8P=A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [2601:600:8000:5a8:ccdc:8fb0:107c:4e51]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e19113ee-577c-49b8-e027-08d339bb3354
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR0301MB0648; 5:BH/ZivdVnsEXpTQ0MUVV691VsvABDznXeQJLHHrUrsxXIdgo4nPUqmCPoDsmjRlY8D55geczn4pCrVdR78BBIZWmD8E9woeEVLlMtpU/RhS1Dgr8YX4se9LPlAnawC9jS7ki04gbfu7NNwQdxswqOA==; 24:AxOtvx3F0A5A3T5c/HiJ4AlyxfkOL9FlD2j07vFGnV24W0L03GrYYoC/xnVfqpBFgni6nCSWPsHv5TKyCERo10+eqgh/zAEEjvY6IBQu4AQ=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0648;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY2PR0301MB064883E13CC5F5E768573A9583A10@BY2PR0301MB0648.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0648; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0648;
x-forefront-prvs: 0858FF8026
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51444003)(24454002)(377454003)(15650500001)(5002640100001)(5003600100002)(15975445007)(76576001)(19580405001)(87936001)(5001960100002)(7110500001)(86362001)(19580395003)(74316001)(2420400007)(5008740100001)(189998001)(1096002)(92566002)(77096005)(10090500001)(99286002)(8990500004)(40100003)(4326007)(2906002)(54356999)(76176999)(10710500007)(2900100001)(5004730100002)(50986999)(33656002)(3280700002)(2950100001)(10400500002)(3660700001)(19300405004)(6116002)(5005710100001)(102836003)(586003)(122556002)(110136002)(10290500002)(1220700001)(3826002)(562404015); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR0301MB0648; H:BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 20 Feb 2016 06:00:57.0208 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0301MB0648
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/y7hwihujsbKX8jad1e7NwRkELPM>
Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Niceness or urgency of messages #28
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: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 06:01:18 -0000

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Martin Thomson < martin.thomson@gmail.com > wrote:

> I think that this would be easier to explain if the numbers were
> switched for tokens.  Maybe: high, normal, low, super-dooper-low.
> (Similar values are defined for the now-defunct Priority field for
> mail, apart from the last).

I went old school with - http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc577.txt - which we could (almost) have reused:

   Now that I have argued all that, let me suggest interpretations for
   urgency values.  This is so that programmers can have automata-
   generated mail (e.g., notification of the status of previously sent
   mail) carry reasonable urgency values:

      10  Phone in the middle of the night, if necessary.
       9
       8  Deliver to user's terminal NOW.
       7
       6  Deliver to user's terminal only if user is at "exec"
          level.
       5
       4  Deliver immediately after sign-on or before sign-off.
       3
       2  Deliver into standard mailbox.
       1
       0  Junk Mail

I really love "Phone in the middle of the night ...". I would also prefer strings for
self-documentation, but was concerned about the potential lack of clarity related
to ordering in statements such as:

   The push service MUST only deliver messages with an urgency *greater than
   or equal to* the value of the header field.

I also explored similar use cases and noted that the SIP priority header field
registered values:

  "emergency" | "urgent" | "normal" | "non-urgent" 

    http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters/sip-parameters.xhtml#sip-parameters-73

but this provoked similar concerns about the need for "explicit statement[s] about the ordering of these values" and:

    "This constant use of specific English words rather than numeric values is 
    causing the protocol and its processing to become less efficient and is 
    leading to complications in the definition ..."

     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg01441.html

Unfortunately, I could not find a response for the rest of the discussion. I'm definitely open to suggestions about the best way to ensure that this is clear to implementers.

> Also, I think that it might pay to note that this header field is not
> forwarded to user agents.

Good point. I'll include that in the next commit.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email