Community provides a good feedback and a lot of changes were merged. WG decided to postpone WGLC for a 2 weeks to resolve all issues.New discussion threads were initiated by me:
- Define a list of headers, which must be transmitted to the UA: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webpush/current/threads.html#00578
- Different status codes for negative Push Message Receipts: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webpush/current/threads.html#00579
- When UA should send an acknowledgement? http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webpush/current/threads.html#00580
- 414 Request-URL Too Long: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webpush/current/threads.html#00581
- Try to deliver receipt at least once, even if TTL expired: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webpush/current/threads.html#00582
- Delivery receipt may be sent before AS request delivery: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webpush/current/threads.html#00597
For some of them new GitHub issues was created. Also here is one issue without sending messages to the Web Push mailing list:Prefer: wait=0 for Receiving Push Message Receipts: https://github.com/webpush-wg/webpush-protocol/issues/113On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Daniel Bevenius <daniel.bevenius@gmail.com> wrote:> Daniel, could you review the current draft too, please? My suggestion will be to read editor's copy [2], instead of IETF page [3], because they merged a few changes this week [4].I'll try to catch up on the spec this week (hard to find the spare time to do this at the moment).On 3 June 2016 at 12:51, Idel Pivnitskiy <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.com> wrote:_______________________________________________Hi all,Looks like Web Push WG ready for the WGLC [1]. They gathers feedback as soon as possible.I've initiated a few thread:
- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webpush/current/threads.html#00549
- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/webpush/current/threads.html#00559
Also I want to ask them some questions about not clear parts of the draft for me.Daniel, could you review the current draft too, please? My suggestion will be to read editor's copy [2], instead of IETF page [3], because they merged a few changes this week [4].
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev