- From: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 08:51:47 -0700
- To: Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>
- Cc: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
The websocket version documents what we did for Mozilla and TEF's push system. I also support Martin's draft as a base. On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com> wrote: > While I haven't finished reviewing it yet, the removal of the dependency on > Web Sockets is something we're strongly in favor of. Choosing which protocol > the IETF group is going to pursue is a decision to be made there, at least > until the Web Push API gains a formal dependency on it. > > For the record, I support taking Martin's draft as a base. > > Thanks, > Peter > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >> My draft is basically what we do today. Martin's draft leverages >> http2 and is much cleaner/simpler. I am not sure which we are putting >> our money on yet, but I suspect it will be Martin's. >> >> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Hi Martin, Doug, >> > >> > I noticed there are two drafts related to push protocol: >> > >> > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-webpush-http2-00> >> > <http://dougt.github.io/webpush-protocol/draft-turner-webpush.html> >> > >> > What are the plans and expectations for these specs (f.ex. do they >> > address >> > different use case and thus are independent; are they to be merged; is >> > one >> > to replaced/usurped by the other; survival of the fittest; >> > standardization >> > plans; ...)? >> > >> > -Thanks, ArtB >> > >> > >> >
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 15:52:38 UTC