Subject: [Webpush] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-webpush-encryption-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:15:22 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-webpush-encryption-08: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-webpush-encryption/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is really well written and clear. Thank you for that.

I found “for efficiency reasons” in this text

  For efficiency reasons, multiple users of Web Push often share a
   central agent that aggregates push functionality.

To be so broad that I wasn’t sure what you were telling the reader. Are there
any specific efficiencies that you could call out, so that we’d better
understand why central agents are used? And if that’s already written down
someplace, adding a pointer would be even better.

I’m curious about algorithm agility, but I’m not the person to ask that
question ...

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:03:50 +1000

> someplace, adding a pointer would be even better.

It's engineering efficiency more than anything else.  On mobile
platforms, this is the platform; on browsers, the browser.  If I
remove the "for efficiency reasons" clause, I don't think we lose
anything.

> I’m curious about algorithm agility, but I’m not the person to ask that

It's a common question.  Common enough that I'll add some text and
avoid future occurrences.

We have deployment experience with this already.  We deployed an
earlier version, then had to change it a few times.  So we know how to
do this.  The User Agent tells the application what content codings it
likes.  The W3C spec has a supportedContentEncodings parameter on the
PushManager interface that does this
(https://w3c.github.io/push-api/#pushmanager-interface).

For you:
  https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-encryption/pull/18

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 20:35:39 -0500

Hi, Martin,

Top posting to say this looks like a plan. Thanks!

Spencer