I was wondering about what should be included in the = returned status for a channel, mentioned in section 6 [1]:

"= Clients can check the status of individual channels by sending GET requests= to the channel URI."

Is this a simple return= status code of 200/404, or should there be other information included like= when the channel expires?

Thanks,

<= /div>

/Daniel

[1]=C2=A0h= ttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-webpush-http2-01#section-6

--089e010d8dd6f2ab870509781bda-- From nobody Fri Dec 5 09:52:28 2014 Return-Path: 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 EB23E1AD4A4 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:52:26 -0800 (PST) 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 xOP0J-ou5tGk for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:52:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x22b.google.com (mail-ob0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E3941AD4A1 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:52:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id uz6so894425obc.30 for ; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:52:22 -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=J1VE8CJ273rCCZpXAY/3N/1sml8O78K3hTneEOQipn0=; b=qeR649EMlCIa9l2u7PYfLSTgInJfYpW+rbt7YxN8f0Xgaiy1e140z7QPbR4BlPb9KN W9kpP3Skk2MTIEK/ps8z7dUdqbJyqef0ka4rHnsvtjsTFFsiFxpGsAWpsDQ3+XWGAG0A MfNJqZD1NxSOFNzL/kITKuqCQBlXv4DWlri0ogj7hXgERlvpT5xeIOb1fXG0kXtVHGBi 180jsjAV/r4wrrdStWOCnO1xxMpLX/8OMPEtiq6ky7ixXJjMaO75SCQAA16VMq56x0jK SbUazMxG4wsoDujHUVrpxi1amDS1uvsmO/oNepwg6f4JG6aXBTXRFJk5QG/B4Y+KQjl/ FXcg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.44.213 with SMTP id s204mr10579365ois.77.1417801942636; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:52:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.115.4 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:52:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 09:52:22 -0800 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: Daniel Bevenius Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/9V8eVCvUxrHtDYeidnyPRc-l2vw Cc: "webpush@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Webpush] Channel status question 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 17:52:27 -0000 On 5 December 2014 at 05:32, Daniel Bevenius wrote: > Is this a simple return status code of 200/404, or should there be other > information included like when the channel expires? The idea here is that the client can request the last message that was sent on that channel. That definitely needs work. From nobody Fri Dec 12 16:01:33 2014 Return-Path: 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 7E3621A1AB9 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:01:31 -0800 (PST) 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 bLmSA7nHl2lJ for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:01:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com (mail-ob0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F29CA1A1A9F for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:01:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id vb8so10712245obc.7 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:01:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=p65GnonkodZTeAlaL9HVPXRWmbejd8K5EzDwAyMHL7A=; b=XbEVWvZJkMzUxAPK1K0FPyvDBfv3M1PXTD2uWVxDMKyo+6YuG1PPYbwFK4Iyn6Yecl A8UBeMZOzoYcHIqD5l/jj1HqJT25174C2cfYO6SVZUXi6d8w04y1eIclJ60EF2Dh7uEr 1atWt4OmGrJgMwCw+ToEu7wypqg9ZX5LsLpjTmS+rE6bOGgN1ab34EHlj2MDIASYOewY HoSsZUYmmWP6mmf4+p+4xo2ldlGyBURQ+7PYchjN8ze6txAbvdmE9ITMpZgZM3sv5irA BSMVBCQTMxq2AB+2IA/mNSRcVIkz/DZ4qKdjLLj+gD/U5MLry7UR0wwxbnuFfskMAG7c pa9Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.51.8 with SMTP id z8mr11205111oiz.77.1418428889186; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:01:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.107.19 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:01:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:01:29 -0800 Message-ID: From: Martin Thomson To: "webpush@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/webpush/AO_qTvcM6o5ZuiD4PGQpotop44A Subject: [Webpush] webpush for http2 -02 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 00:01:32 -0000 I've revised the protocol proposal for web push. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomson-webpush-http2/ A more readable HTML version is here, though this will be updated as I make changes: https://martinthomson.github.io/drafts/draft-thomson-webpush-http2.html This includes some fairly significant changes to incorporate the feedback I've received from various corners. I haven't prepared a change log, but I believe that this covers at least the high points of what was discussed at the meeting: - names of everything have changed - I've added examples and expanded the explanatory text throughout - removed use of 202 due to a privacy concern (thanks to Robert Sparks for sharing his experience with this) - significantly expanded the operational considerations regarding load distribution and message retention - minimum message size of 4k added