Re: [Webpush] Message expiration (TTL) and Negative Acknowledgements

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 16 October 2015 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@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 EFC2C1A212A for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 g5eH-xmWJkON for <webpush@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22e.google.com (mail-yk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22e]) (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 98A631A1C02 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ykaz22 with SMTP id z22so95077426yka.2 for <webpush@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
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=6luJ03KQD1MWw1ih+nlBLVEudUcIjNeuAn5780bwTa4=; b=ZzoVpN2so+2Dgv+w2nQ8GT0QmtX2KvqbffzjrwAvRlEsPErgMKoEMEUYvu7ks0kurB XGb+nSyiJrQxqVYbex8+hw/gp8noo1wefy2gCdBGWuFSXJRqaVRU9GzCxx34MtOhjjyO yfyw4FPXukB7S1jc++jz9zTFNzcZnyBC2+HQhpHXJfS8LAgnMWD8vyxNpx8yfLVQXpmt 2fOCnfgNY+9vNLYKcIh+aqJDs8j7uaqBHemsp5Kb+ZGg/yr1sDIMzsggw+ynms2IsEVj AacHO5d6ow1az3FUzD7vgJl6FVffgMCjjTQIJc5mlrQDvjyiQG0IO/RhDA+XiP8UgjPY DPzQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.13.196.196 with SMTP id g187mr13410813ywd.98.1445032940836; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.13.230.78 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABp8EuJ7MHO3jtscebCEzob2SfAsQ3LhdMt35WK=WTOYL8aS=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BY2PR0301MB0647111FCF5845E3AA0C244583300@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnUs_S6aRpTi6H5+d4xpuU1+2G1OKmWCxzczk+DYDWZGSQ@mail.gmail.com> <BY2PR0301MB0647EAE2174E1103EF59A2A083300@BY2PR0301MB0647.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnUOcuK6p2C5WDaS==nwcYMfnpu1jXKj8oo31css7CFJNg@mail.gmail.com> <561EC47C.4090803@mozilla.com> <CABkgnnUHF1Z0expqJmggyYxnJm-EUU5x97JUo7=NhjhRDUVWvA@mail.gmail.com> <561ED106.8030806@mozilla.com> <CABp8EuLoOx_Vda_A+6bcs27q3erRR0+eHWC0DS_JB3fzgoniow@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVVBsto0pucik0-6F0h7v9FG_uWoPH0XL8snNG_M6Z7qA@mail.gmail.com> <CABp8EuJ7MHO3jtscebCEzob2SfAsQ3LhdMt35WK=WTOYL8aS=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:02:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXXYwTiX3NQ6ukUC1pYDjb8+-fb3zm8S38EWacDXBk_Jw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/yQT1FdfcerChKlAw0P0FyZBAwbM>
Cc: jr conlin <jconlin@mozilla.com>, "webpush@ietf.org" <webpush@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Webpush] Message expiration (TTL) and Negative Acknowledgements
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: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 22:02:23 -0000

On 16 October 2015 at 14:20, Benjamin Bangert <bbangert@mozilla.com> wrote:
> For the NACK's, speaking of server constraints, how many receipts is a Push
> Service expected to buffer for an App-Server? If an App-Server sends 500k
> notifications in, and happens to not be connected to the receipt server at
> the time.... how many of those is the Push Service supposed to hold onto
> until the app-server starts pulling them?

The number is bounded by the number of messages the app server has
successfully requested delivery for.  If you have 500k outstanding
messages from the same app server, then you are hold that much message
state; having some proportion of that translate into ack/nack state
seems like it should be less state.

Of course, if you are shedding load, then I see no reason not to be
fairly aggressive about dumping nacks.  That's probably worth noting
in the operational considerations.

> If the stream of NACK's is several magnitudes higher than an App-Server can
> process them, at what point can a Push Service start dropping NACK's on the
> floor?

Inability to deliver an ACK or NACK can be treated exactly like
failure to deliver a message, I'd imagine.  You can't be expected to
hold these forever.