W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: [push] protocol drafts

From: Peter Beverloo <beverloo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:44:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CALt3x6m_ykb3wGwmx7jbdJfgdkDF4Pk1YJguU=TcE_ZO43ViJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Turner <dougt@mozilla.com>
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
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 15:44:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:24 UTC