[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-thomson-webpush-protocol) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 8030

WEBPUSH                                                       M. Thomson
Internet-Draft                                                   Mozilla
Intended status: Standards Track                             E. Damaggio
Expires: May 26, 2016                                     B. Raymor, Ed.
                                                               Microsoft
                                                       November 23, 2015


                 Generic Event Delivery Using HTTP Push
                     draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-02

Abstract

   A simple protocol for the delivery of realtime events to user agents
   is described.  This scheme uses HTTP/2 server push.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 26, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.




Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  HTTP Resources  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Connecting to the Push Service  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Subscribing for Push Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Correlating Subscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Subscribing for Push Message Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Requesting Push Message Delivery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Requesting Push Message Receipts  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Push Message Time-To-Live . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Receiving Push Messages for a Subscription  . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Receiving Push Messages for a Subscription Set  . . . . .  13
     7.2.  Acknowledging Push Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     7.3.  Receiving Push Message Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.1.  Load Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.2.  Push Message Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.3.  Subscription Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       8.3.1.  Subscription Set Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.4.  Implications for Application Reliability  . . . . . . . .  18
     8.5.  Subscription Sets and Concurrent HTTP/2 streams . . . . .  18
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     9.1.  Confidentiality from Push Service Access  . . . . . . . .  19
     9.2.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     9.3.  Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     9.4.  Denial of Service Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     9.5.  Logging Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     10.1.  Header Field Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     10.2.  Link Relation URNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     10.3.  Service Name and Port Number Registration  . . . . . . .  24
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     A.1.  Since draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-00  . . . . . . . . . .  26
     A.2.  Since draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-01  . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27

1.  Introduction

   Many applications on mobile and embedded devices require continuous
   access to network communications so that real-time events - such as
   incoming calls or messages - can be delivered (or "pushed") in a



Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   timely fashion.  These devices typically have limited power reserves,
   so finding more efficient ways to serve application requirements
   greatly benefits the application ecosystem.

   One significant contributor to power usage is the radio.  Radio
   communications consume a significant portion of the energy budget on
   a wireless device.

   Uncoordinated use of persistent connections or sessions from multiple
   applications can contribute to unnecessary use of the device radio,
   since each independent session independently incurs overheads.  In
   particular, keep alive traffic used to ensure that middleboxes do not
   prematurely time out sessions, can result in significant waste.
   Maintenance traffic tends to dominate over the long term, since
   events are relatively rare.

   Consolidating all real-time events into a single session ensures more
   efficient use of network and radio resources.  A single service
   consolidates all events, distributing those events to applications as
   they arrive.  This requires just one session, avoiding duplicated
   overhead costs.

   The W3C Web Push API [API] describes an API that enables the use of a
   consolidated push service from web applications.  This expands on
   that work by describing a protocol that can be used to:

   o  request the delivery of a push message to a user agent,

   o  create new push message delivery subscriptions, and

   o  monitor for new push messages.

   Requesting the delivery of events is particularly important for the
   Web Push API.  The subscription, management and monitoring functions
   are currently fulfilled by proprietary protocols; these are adequate,
   but do not offer any of the advantages that standardization affords.

   This document intentionally does not describe how a push service is
   discovered.  Discovery of push services is left for future efforts,
   if it turns out to be necessary at all.  User agents are expected to
   be configured with a URL for a push service.

1.1.  Conventions and Terminology

   In cases where normative language needs to be emphasized, this
   document falls back on established shorthands for expressing
   interoperability requirements on implementations: the capitalized




Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD" and "MAY".  The meaning of these
   is described in [RFC2119].

   This document defines the following terms:

   application:  Both the sender and ultimate consumer of push messages.
      Many applications have components that are run on a user agent and
      other components that run on servers.

   application server:  The component of an application that runs on a
      server and requests the delivery of a push message.

   push message subscription:  A message delivery context that is
      established between the user agent and the push service and shared
      with the application server.  All push messages are associated
      with a push message subscription.

   push message subscription set:  A message delivery context that is
      established between the user agent and the push service that
      collects multiple push message subscriptions into a set.

   push message:  A message sent from an application server to a user
      agent via a push service.

   push message receipt:  A message delivery confirmation sent from the
      push service to the application server.

   push service:  A service that delivers push messages to user agents.

   user agent:  A device and software that is the recipient of push
      messages.

   Examples in this document use the HTTP/1.1 message format [RFC7230].
   Many of the exchanges can be completed using HTTP/1.1, where HTTP/2
   is necessary, the more verbose frame format from [RFC7540] is used.

2.  Overview

   A general model for push services includes three basic actors: a user
   agent, a push service, and an application (server).











Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


    +-------+           +--------------+       +-------------+
    |  UA   |           | Push Service |       | Application |
    +-------+           +--------------+       +-------------+
        |                      |                      |
        |      Subscribe       |                      |
        |--------------------->|                      |
        |       Monitor        |                      |
        |<====================>|                      |
        |                      |                      |
        |          Distribute Push Resource           |
        |-------------------------------------------->|
        |                      |                      |
        :                      :                      :
        |                      |     Push Message     |
        |    Push Message      |<---------------------|
        |<---------------------|                      |
        |                      |                      |

   At the very beginning of the process, a new message subscription is
   created by the user agent and then distributed to its application
   server.  This subscription is the basis of all future interactions
   between the actors.

   To offer more control for authorization, a message subscription is
   modeled as two resources with different capabilities:

   o  A subscription resource is used to receive messages from a
      subscription and to delete a subscription.  It is private to the
      user agent.

   o  A push resource is used to send messages to a subscription.  It is
      public and shared by the user agent with its application server.

   It is expected that a unique subscription will be distributed to each
   application; however, there are no inherent cardinality constraints
   in the protocol.  Multiple subscriptions might be created for the
   same application, or multiple applications could use the same
   subscription.  Note however that sharing subscriptions has security
   and privacy implications.

   Subscriptions have a limited lifetime.  They can also be terminated
   by either the push service or user agent at any time.  User agents
   and application servers must be prepared to manage changes in
   subscription state.







Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


2.1.  HTTP Resources

   This protocol uses HTTP resources [RFC7230] and link relations
   [RFC5988].  The following resources are defined:

   push service:  This resource is used to create push message
      subscriptions (see Section 4).  A URL for the push service is
      configured into user agents.

   push message subscription:  This resource provides read and delete
      access for a message subscription.  A user agent receives push
      messages (Section 7) using a push message subscription.  Every
      push message subscription has exactly one push resource associated
      with it.

   push message subscription set:  This resource provides read and
      delete access for a collection of push message subscriptions.  A
      user agent receives push messages (Section 7.1) for all the push
      message subscriptions in the set.  A link relation of type
      "urn:ietf:params:push:set" identifies a push message subscription
      set.

   push:  A push resource is used by the application server to request
      the delivery of a push message (see Section 6).  A link relation
      of type "urn:ietf:params:push" is used to identify a push
      resource.

   push message:  A push message resource is created to identify push
      messages that have been accepted by the push service.  The push
      message resource is also used to acknowledge receipt of a push
      message.

   receipt subscribe:  A receipt subscribe resource is used by an
      application server to create a receipt subscription (see
      Section 5).  A link relation of type
      "urn:ietf:params:push:receipt" is used to identity a receipt
      subscribe resource.

   receipt subscription:  An application server receives delivery
      confirmations (Section 6.1) for push messages using a receipt
      subscription.

3.  Connecting to the Push Service

   The push service shares the same default port number (443/TCP) with
   HTTPS, but MAY also advertise the IANA allocated TCP System Port 1001
   using HTTP alternative services [I-D.ietf-httpbis-alt-svc]:




Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   While the default port (443) offers broad reachability
   characteristics, it is most often used for web browsing scenarios
   with a lower idle timeout than other ports configured in middleboxes.
   For webpush scenarios, this would contribute to unnecessary radio
   communications to maintain the connection on battery-powered devices.

   Advertising the alternate port (1001) allows middleboxes to optimize
   idle timeouts for connections specific to push scenarios with the
   expectation that data exchange will be infrequent.

   Middleboxes SHOULD comply with REQ-5 in [RFC5382] which requires that
   "the value of the 'established connection idle-timeout' MUST NOT be
   less than 2 hours 4 minutes".

4.  Subscribing for Push Messages

   A user agent sends a POST request to its configured push service
   resource to create a new subscription.

   POST /subscribe/ HTTP/1.1
   Host: push.example.net


   A response with a 201 (Created) status code includes a URI for a new
   push message subscription resource in the Location header field.

   The push service MUST provide a URI for the push resource
   corresponding to the push message subscription using a link relation
   of type "urn:ietf:params:push".

   The push service MUST provide a URI for a receipt subscribe resource
   in a link relation of type "urn:ietf:params:push:receipt".

   An application-specific method is used to distribute the push and
   receipt subscribe URIs to the application server.  Confidentiality
   protection and application server authentication MUST be used to
   ensure that these URIs are not disclosed to unauthorized recipients
   (see Section 9.3).

   The push service MAY provide a URI for a subscription set resource in
   a link relation of type "urn:ietf:params:push:set".  If provided, the
   push service supports subscription sets.  If available, the user
   agent SHOULD use the subscription set to receive push messages rather
   than individual push message subscriptions.

   The push service MAY return new subscription sets in response to
   different subscription requests from the same user agent.  This




Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   allows the push service to control the grouping of the push message
   subscriptions.


   HTTP/1.1 201 Created
   Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:56:52 GMT
   Link: </p/JzLQ3raZJfFBR0aqvOMsLrt54w4rJUsV>;
           rel="urn:ietf:params:push"
   Link: </receipts/xjTG79I3VuptNWS0DsFu4ihT97aE6UQJ>;
           rel="urn:ietf:params:push:receipt"
   Link: </set/4UXwi2Rd7jGS7gp5cuutF8ZldnEuvbOy>;
           rel="urn:ietf:params:push:set"
   Location: https://push.example.net/s/LBhhw0OohO-Wl4Oi971UGsB7sdQGUibx


4.1.  Correlating Subscriptions

   PENDING: Discuss how two different subscriptions are correlated based
   on either authentication or connection

5.  Subscribing for Push Message Receipts

   An application server requests the creation of a receipt subscription
   by sending a HTTP POST request to the receipt subscribe resource
   distributed to the application server by a user agent.


   POST /receipts/xjTG79I3VuptNWS0DsFu4ihT97aE6UQJ HTTP/1.1
   Host: push.example.net


   A successful response with a 201 (Created) status code includes a URI
   for the receipt subscription resource in the Location header field.


   HTTP/1.1 201 Created
   Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:56:52 GMT
   Location: https://push.example.net/r/3ZtI4YVNBnUUZhuoChl6omUvG4ZM9mpN


   An application server that sends push messages to a large population
   of user agents incurs a significant load if it has to monitor a
   receipt subscription for each user agent.  Reuse of receipt
   subscriptions is critical in reducing load on application servers.  A
   receipt subscription can be used for all resources that have the same
   receipt subscribe URI.





Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   A push service SHOULD provide the same receipt subscribe URI to all
   user agents.  Application servers SHOULD reuse receipt subscription
   URIs if the receipt subscribe URI provided with the push resource is
   identical to the one used to create the receipt subscription.
   Checking that the receipt subscribe URI is identical allows the
   application server to avoid creating unnecessary receipt
   subscriptions.

6.  Requesting Push Message Delivery

   An application server requests the delivery of a push message by
   sending a HTTP request to a push resource distributed to the
   application server by a user agent.  The push message is included in
   the body of the request.

POST /p/JzLQ3raZJfFBR0aqvOMsLrt54w4rJUsV HTTP/1.1
Host: push.example.net
Push-Receipt: https://push.example.net/r/3ZtI4YVNBnUUZhuoChl6omUvG4ZM9mpN
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf8
Content-Length: 36

iChYuI3jMzt3ir20P8r_jgRR-dSuN182x7iB

   A 201 (Created) response indicates that the push message was
   accepted.  A URI for the push message resource that was created in
   response to the request is included in the Location header field.
   This does not indicate that the message was delivered to the user
   agent.

   HTTP/1.1 201 Created
   Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:56:55 GMT
   Location: https://push.example.net/d/qDIYHNcfAIPP_5ITvURr-d6BGtYnTRnk

   A push service MAY return a 429 (Too Many Requests) status code
   [RFC6585] when an application server has exceeded its rate limit for
   push message delivery to a push resource.  The push service SHOULD
   also include a Retry-After header [RFC7231] to indicate how long the
   application server is requested to wait before it makes another
   request to the push resource.

   A push service MAY return a 413 (Payload Too Large) status code
   [RFC7231] in response to requests that include an entity body that is
   too large.  Push services MUST NOT return a 413 status code in
   responses to an entity body that is 4k (4096 bytes) or less in size.







Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


6.1.  Requesting Push Message Receipts

   An application server can use the Push-Receipt header field to
   request a confirmation from the push service when a push message is
   delivered and acknowledged by the user agent.  The Push-Receipt
   header field is a URI-Reference as defined in Section 2.7 of
   [RFC7230].


   Push-Receipt = URI-reference


   The application sets the Push-Receipt header field value to a receipt
   subscription URI.  This receipt subscription resource MUST be created
   from the same receipt subscribe resource which was returned with the
   push message subscription response (see Section 4).

6.2.  Push Message Time-To-Live

   A push service can improve the reliability of push message delivery
   considerably by storing push messages for a period.  User agents are
   often only intermittently connected, and so benefit from having short
   term message storage at the push service.

   Delaying delivery might also be used to batch communication with the
   user agent, thereby conserving radio resources.

   Some push messages are not useful once a certain period of time
   elapses.  Delivery of messages after they have ceased to be relevant
   is wasteful.  For example, if the push message contains a call
   notification, receiving a message after the caller has abandoned the
   call is of no value; the application at the user agent is forced to
   suppress the message so that it does not generate a useless alert.

   An application server can use the TTL header field to limit the time
   that a push message is retained by a push service.  The TTL header
   field contains a value in seconds that describes how long a push
   message is retained by the push service.

   TTL = 1*DIGIT

   Once the Time-To-Live (TTL) period elapses, the push service MUST NOT
   attempt to deliver the push message to the user agent.  A push
   service might adjust the TTL value to account for time accounting
   errors in processing.  For instance, distributing a push message
   within a server cluster might accrue errors due to clock skew or
   propagation delays.




Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   A push service is not obligated to account for time spent by the
   application server in sending a push message to the push service, or
   delays incurred while sending a push message to the user agent.  An
   application server needs to account for transit delays in selecting a
   TTL header field value.

   Absence of the TTL header field is interpreted as equivalent to a
   zero value.  A Push message with a zero TTL is immediately delivered
   if the user agent is available to receive the message.  After
   delivery, the push service is permitted to immediately remove a push
   message with a zero TTL.  This might occur before the user agent
   acknowledges receipt of the message by performing a HTTP DELETE on
   the push message resource.  Consequently, an application server
   cannot rely on receiving acknowledgement receipts for zero TTL push
   messages.

   If the user agent is unavailable, a push message with a zero TTL
   expires and is never delivered.

   A push service MAY choose to retain a push message for a shorter
   duration than that requested.  It indicates this by including a TTL
   header field in the response that includes the actual TTL.  This TTL
   value MUST be less than or equal to the value provided by the
   application server.

7.  Receiving Push Messages for a Subscription

   A user agent requests the delivery of new push messages by making a
   GET request to a push message subscription resource.  The push
   service does not respond to this request, it instead uses HTTP/2
   server push [RFC7540] to send the contents of push messages as they
   are sent by application servers.

   Each push message is pushed as the response to a synthesized GET
   request in a PUSH_PROMISE.  This GET request is made to the push
   message resource that was created by the push service when the
   application server requested message delivery.  The response headers
   SHOULD provide a URI for the push resource corresponding to the push
   message subscription in a link relation of type
   "urn:ietf:params:push".  The response body is the entity body from
   the most recent request sent to the push resource by the application
   server.









Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   The following example request is made over HTTP/2.

   HEADERS      [stream 7] +END_STREAM +END_HEADERS
     :method        = GET
     :path          = /s/LBhhw0OohO-Wl4Oi971UGsB7sdQGUibx
     :authority     = push.example.net

   The push service permits the request to remain outstanding.  When a
   push message is sent by an application server, a server push is
   associated with the initial request.  The response includes the push
   message.


   PUSH_PROMISE [stream 7; promised stream 4] +END_HEADERS
     :method        = GET
     :path          = /d/qDIYHNcfAIPP_5ITvURr-d6BGtYnTRnk
     :authority     = push.example.net

   HEADERS      [stream 4] +END_HEADERS
     :status        = 200
     date           = Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:56:56 GMT
     last-modified  = Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:56:55 GMT
     cache-control  = private
     :link          = </p/JzLQ3raZJfFBR0aqvOMsLrt54w4rJUsV>;
                       rel="urn:ietf:params:push"
     content-type   = text/plain;charset=utf8
     content-length = 36

   DATA         [stream 4] +END_STREAM
     iChYuI3jMzt3ir20P8r_jgRR-dSuN182x7iB

   The push service response for the GET request to the push message
   subscription resource SHOULD provide a URI for the receipt subscribe
   resource in a link relation of type "urn:ietf:params:push:receipt".


   HEADERS      [stream 7] +END_STREAM +END_HEADERS
     :status        = 200
     :link          = </receipts/xjTG79I3VuptNWS0DsFu4ihT97aE6UQJ>;
                       rel="urn:ietf:params:push:receipt"

   A user agent can also request the contents of the push message
   subscription resource immediately by including a Prefer header field
   [RFC7240] with a "wait" parameter set to "0".  In response to this
   request, the push service MUST generate a server push for all push
   messages that have not yet been delivered.





Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   A 204 (No Content) status code with no associated server pushes
   indicates that no messages are presently available.  This could be
   because push messages have expired.

7.1.  Receiving Push Messages for a Subscription Set

   There are minor differences between receiving push messages for a
   subscription and a subscripion set.

   A user agent requests the delivery of new push messages for a
   collection of push message subscriptions by making a GET request to a
   push message subscription set resource.  The push service does not
   respond to this request, it instead uses HTTP/2 server push [RFC7540]
   to send the contents of push messages as they are sent by application
   servers.

   Each push message is pushed as the response to a synthesized GET
   request sent in a PUSH_PROMISE.  This GET request is made to the push
   message resource that was created by the push service when the
   application server requested message delivery.  The synthetic request
   MUST provide a URI for the push resource corresponding to the push
   message subscription in a link relation of type
   "urn:ietf:params:push".  This enables the user agent to differentiate
   the source of the message.  The response body is the entity body from
   the most recent request sent to the push resource by an application
   server.

   The following example request is made over HTTP/2.


   HEADERS      [stream 7] +END_STREAM +END_HEADERS
     :method        = GET
     :path          = /set/4UXwi2Rd7jGS7gp5cuutF8ZldnEuvbOy
     :authority     = push.example.net

















Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   The push service permits the request to remain outstanding.  When a
   push message is sent by an application server, a server push is
   associated with the initial request.  The response includes the push
   message.


   PUSH_PROMISE [stream 7; promised stream 4] +END_HEADERS
     :method        = GET
     :path          = /d/qDIYHNcfAIPP_5ITvURr-d6BGtYnTRnk
     :authority     = push.example.net
     :link          = </p/JzLQ3raZJfFBR0aqvOMsLrt54w4rJUsV>;
                       rel="urn:ietf:params:push"

   HEADERS      [stream 4] +END_HEADERS
     :status        = 200
     date           = Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:56:56 GMT
     last-modified  = Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:56:55 GMT
     cache-control  = private
     content-type   = text/plain;charset=utf8
     content-length = 36

   DATA         [stream 4] +END_STREAM
     iChYuI3jMzt3ir20P8r_jgRR-dSuN182x7iB


   The push service response for the GET request to the push message
   subscription set resource SHOULD provide a URI for the receipt
   subscribe resource in a link relation of type
   "urn:ietf:params:push:receipt".


   HEADERS      [stream 7] +END_STREAM +END_HEADERS
     :status        = 200
     :link          = </receipts/xjTG79I3VuptNWS0DsFu4ihT97aE6UQJ>;
                       rel="urn:ietf:params:push:receipt"


   A user agent can request the contents of the push message
   subscription set resource immediately by including a Prefer header
   field [RFC7240] with a "wait" parameter set to "0".  In response to
   this request, the push service MUST generate a server push for all
   push messages that have not yet been delivered.

   A 204 (No Content) status code with no associated server pushes
   indicates that no messages are presently available.  This could be
   because push messages have expired.





Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


7.2.  Acknowledging Push Messages

   To ensure that a push message is properly delivered to the user agent
   at least once, the user agent MUST acknowledge receipt of the message
   by performing a HTTP DELETE on the push message resource.


   DELETE /d/qDIYHNcfAIPP_5ITvURr-d6BGtYnTRnk HTTP/1.1
   Host: push.example.net


   If the push service receives the acknowledgement and the application
   has requested a delivery receipt, the push service MUST deliver a
   success response to the application server monitoring the receipt
   subscription resource.

   If the push service does not receive the acknowledgement within a
   reasonable amount of time, then the message is considered to be not
   yet delivered.  The push service SHOULD continue to retry delivery of
   the message until its advertised expiration.

   The push service MAY cease to retry delivery of the message prior to
   its advertised expiration due to scenarios such as an unresponsive
   user agent or operational constraints.  If the application has
   requested a delivery receipt, then the push service MUST push a
   failure response with a status code of 410 (Gone) to the application
   server monitoring the receipt subscription resource.

7.3.  Receiving Push Message Receipts

   The application server requests the delivery of receipts from the
   push service by making a HTTP GET request to the receipt subscription
   resource.  The push service does not respond to this request, it
   instead uses HTTP/2 server push [RFC7540] to send push receipts when
   messages are acknowledged (Section 7.2) by the user agent.

   Each receipt is pushed as the response to a synthesized GET request
   sent in a PUSH_PROMISE.  This GET request is made to the same push
   message resource that was created by the push service when the
   application server requested message delivery.  A successful response
   includes a 204 (No Content) status code with no data.










Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   The following example request is made over HTTP/2.


   HEADERS      [stream 13] +END_STREAM +END_HEADERS
     :method        = GET
     :path          = /r/3ZtI4YVNBnUUZhuoChl6omUvG4ZM9mpN
     :authority     = push.example.net


   The push service permits the request to remain outstanding.  When the
   user agent acknowledges the message, the push service pushes a
   delivery receipt to the application server.  A 204 (No Content)
   status code confirms that the message was delivered and acknowledged.


   PUSH_PROMISE [stream 13; promised stream 82] +END_HEADERS
     :method        = GET
     :path          = /d/qDIYHNcfAIPP_5ITvURr-d6BGtYnTRnk
     :authority     = push.example.net

   HEADERS      [stream 82] +END_STREAM
                           +END_HEADERS
     :status        = 204
     date           = Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:56:56 GMT


   If the user agent fails to acknowledge the receipt of the push
   message and the push service ceases to retry delivery of the message
   prior to its advertised expiration, then the push service MUST push a
   failure response with a status code of 410 (Gone).

8.  Operational Considerations

8.1.  Load Management

   A push service is likely to have to maintain a very large number of
   open TCP connections.  Effective management of those connections can
   depend on being able to move connections between server instances.

   A user agent MUST support the 307 (Temporary Redirect) status code
   [RFC7231], which can be used by a push service to redistribute load
   at the time that a new subscription is requested.

   A server that wishes to redistribute load can do so using alternative
   services [I-D.ietf-httpbis-alt-svc].  Alternative services allows for
   redistribution of load whilst maintaining the same URIs for various
   resources.  User agents can ensure a graceful transition by using the
   GOAWAY frame once it has established a replacement connection.



Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


8.2.  Push Message Expiration

   Storage of push messages based on the TTL header field comprises a
   potentially significant amount of storage for a push service.  A push
   service is not obligated to store messages indefinitely.  A push
   service is able to indicate how long it intends to retain a message
   to an application server using the TTL header field (see
   Section 6.2).

   A user agent that does not actively monitor for push messages will
   not receive messages that expire during that interval.

   Push messages that are stored and not delivered to a user agent are
   delivered when the user agent recommences monitoring.  Stored push
   messages SHOULD include a Last-Modified header field (see Section 2.2
   of [RFC7232]) indicating when delivery was requested by an
   application server.

   A GET request to a push message subscription resource that has only
   expired messages results in response as though no push message were
   ever sent.

   Push services might need to limit the size and number of stored push
   messages to avoid overloading.  To limit the size of messages, the
   push service MAY return the 413 (Payload Too Large) status code for
   messages that are too large.  To limit the number of stored push
   messages, the push service MAY either expire messages prior to their
   advertised Time-To-Live or reduce their advertised Time-To-Live.

8.3.  Subscription Expiration

   In some cases, it may be necessary to terminate subscriptions so that
   they can be refreshed.  This applies to both push message
   subscriptions and receipt subscriptions.

   A push service can remove a subscription at any time.  If a user
   agent or application server has an outstanding request to a
   subscription resource (see Section 7), this can be signaled by
   returning a 400-series status code, such as 410 (Gone).

   A user agent or application server can request that a subscription be
   removed by sending a DELETE request to the push message subscription
   or receipt subscription URI.

   A push service MUST return a 400-series status code, such as 404 (Not
   Found) or 410 (Gone) if an application server attempts to send a push
   message to a removed or expired push message subscription.




Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


8.3.1.  Subscription Set Expiration

   A push service MAY expire a subscription set at any time which MUST
   also expire all push message subscriptions in the set.  If a user
   agent has an outstanding request to a push subscription set (see
   Section 7.1) this can be signaled by returning a 400-series status
   code, such as 410 (Gone).

   A user agent can request that a subscription set be removed by
   sending a DELETE request to the subscription set URI.  This MUST also
   remove all push message subscriptions in the set.

   If a specific push message subscription that is a member of a
   subscription set is expired or removed, then it MUST also be removed
   from its subscription set.

8.4.  Implications for Application Reliability

   A push service that does not support reliable delivery over
   intermittent network connections or failing applications on devices,
   forces the device to acknowledge receipt directly to the application
   server, incurring additional power drain in order to establish
   (usually secure) connections to the individual application servers.

   Push message reliability can be important if messages contain
   information critical to the state of an application.  Repairing state
   can be costly, particularly for devices with limited communications
   capacity.  Knowing that a push message has been correctly received
   avoids costly retransmissions, polling and state resynchronization.

   The availability of push message delivery receipts ensures that the
   application developer is not tempted to create alternative mechanisms
   for message delivery in case the push service fails to deliver a
   critical message.  Setting up a polling mechanism or a backup
   messaging channel in order to compensate for these shortcomings
   negates almost all of the advantages a push service provides.

   However, reliability might not be necessary for messages that are
   transient (e.g. an incoming call) or messages that are quickly
   superceded (e.g. the current number of unread emails).

8.5.  Subscription Sets and Concurrent HTTP/2 streams

   If the push service requires that the user agent use push message
   subscription sets, then it MAY limit the number of concurrently
   active streams with the SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS parameter
   within a HTTP/2 SETTINGS frame [RFC7540].  The user agent MAY be
   limited to one concurrent stream to manage push message subscriptions



Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   and one concurrent stream for each subscription set returned by the
   push service.  This could force the user agent to serialize
   subscription requests to the push service.

9.  Security Considerations

   This protocol MUST use HTTP over TLS [RFC2818].  This includes any
   communications between user agent and push service, plus
   communications between the application and the push service.  All
   URIs therefore use the "https" scheme.  This provides confidentiality
   and integrity protection for subscriptions and push messages from
   external parties.

9.1.  Confidentiality from Push Service Access

   The protection afforded by TLS does not protect content from the push
   service.  Without additional safeguards, a push service is able to
   see and modify the content of the messages.

   Applications are able to provide additional confidentiality,
   integrity or authentication mechanisms within the push message
   itself.  The application server sending the push message and the
   application on the user agent that receives it are frequently just
   different instances of the same application, so no standardized
   protocol is needed to establish a proper security context.  The
   process of providing the application server with subscription
   information provides a convenient medium for key agreement.

   The Web Push API codifies this practice by requiring that each push
   subscription created by the browser be bound to a browser generated
   encryption key.  Pushed messages are authenticated and decrypted by
   the browser before delivery to applications.  This scheme ensures
   that the push service is unable to examine the contents of push
   messages.

   The public key for a subscription ensures that applications using
   that subscription can identify messages from unknown sources and
   discard them.  This depends on the public key only being disclosed to
   entities that are authorized to send messages on the channel.  The
   push service does not require access to this public key.

9.2.  Privacy Considerations

   Push message confidentiality does not ensure that the identity of who
   is communicating and when they are communicating is protected.
   However, the amount of information that is exposed can be limited.





Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   The URIs provided for push resources MUST NOT provide any basis to
   correlate communications for a given user agent.  It MUST NOT be
   possible to correlate any two push resource URIs based solely on
   their contents.  This allows a user agent to control correlation
   across different applications, or over time.

   Similarly, the URIs provided by the push service to identify a push
   message MUST NOT provide any information that allows for correlation
   across subscriptions.  Push message URIs for the same subscription
   MAY contain information that would allow correlation with the
   associated subscription or other push messages for that subscription.

   User and device information MUST NOT be exposed through a push or
   push message URI.

   In addition, push URIs established by the same user agent or push
   message URIs for the same subscription MUST NOT include any
   information that allows them to be correlated with the user agent.

   Note:  This need not be perfect as long as the resulting anonymity
      set (see [RFC6973], Section 6.1.1) is sufficiently large.  A push
      URI necessarily identifies a push service or a single server
      instance.  It is also possible that traffic analysis could be used
      to correlate subscriptions.

   A user agent MUST be able to create new subscriptions with new
   identifiers at any time.

9.3.  Authorization

   This protocol does not define how a push service establishes whether
   a user agent is permitted to create a subscription, or whether push
   messages can be delivered to the user agent.  A push service MAY
   choose to authorize requests based on any HTTP-compatible
   authorization method available, of which there are numerous options.
   The authorization process and any associated credentials are expected
   to be configured in the user agent along with the URI for the push
   service.

   Authorization is managed using capability URLs for the push message
   subscription, push, and receipt subscription resources (see
   [CAP-URI]).  A capability URL grants access to a resource based
   solely on knowledge of the URL.

   Capability URLs are used for their "easy onward sharing" and "easy
   client API" properties.  These make it possible to avoid relying on
   relationships between push services and application servers, with the
   protocols necessary to build and support those relationships.



Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   Capability URLs act as bearer tokens.  Knowledge of a push message
   subscription URI implies authorization to either receive push
   messages or delete the subscription.  Knowledge of a push URI implies
   authorization to send push messages.  Knowledge of a push message URI
   allows for reading and acknowledging that specific message.
   Knowledge of a receipt subscription URI implies authorization to
   receive push receipts.  Knowledge of a receipt subscribe URI implies
   authorization to create subscriptions for receipts.

   Note that the same receipt subscribe URI could be returned for
   multiple push message subscriptions.  Using the same value for a
   large number of subscriptions allows application servers to reuse
   receipt subscriptions, which can provide a significant efficiency
   advantage.  A push service that uses a common receipt subscribe URI
   loses control over the creation of receipt subscriptions.  This can
   result in a potential exposure to denial of service; stateless
   resource creation can be used to mitigate the effects of this
   exposure.

   Encoding a large amount of random entropy (at least 120 bits) in the
   path component ensures that it is difficult to successfully guess a
   valid capability URL.

9.4.  Denial of Service Considerations

   Discarding unwanted messages at the user agent based on message
   authentication doesn't protect against a denial of service attack on
   the user agent.  Even a relatively small volume of push messages can
   cause battery-powered devices to exhaust power reserves.

   An application can limit where valid push messages can originate by
   limiting the distribution of push URIs to authorized entities.
   Ensuring that push URIs are hard to guess ensures that only
   application servers that have been given a push URI can use it.

   A malicious application with a valid push URI could use the greater
   resources of a push service to mount a denial of service attack on a
   user agent.  Push services SHOULD limit the rate at which push
   messages are sent to individual user agents.  A push service or user
   agent MAY terminate subscriptions (Section 8.3) that receive too many
   push messages.

   End-to-end confidentiality mechanisms, such as those in [API],
   prevent an entity with a valid push message subscription URI from
   learning the contents of push messages.  Push messages that are not
   successfully authenticated will not be delivered by the API, but this
   can present a denial of service risk.




Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   Conversely, a push service is also able to deny service to user
   agents.  Intentional failure to deliver messages is difficult to
   distinguish from faults, which might occur due to transient network
   errors, interruptions in user agent availability, or genuine service
   outages.

9.5.  Logging Risks

   Server request logs can reveal subscription-related URIs.  Acquiring
   a push message subscription URI enables the receipt of messages or
   deletion of the subscription.  Acquiring a push URI permits the
   sending of push messages.  Logging could also reveal relationships
   between different subscription-related URIs for the same user agent.
   Encrypted message contents are not revealed to the push service.

   Limitations on log retention and strong access control mechanisms can
   ensure that URIs are not learned by unauthorized entities.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This protocol defines new HTTP header fields in Section 10.1.  New
   link relation types are identified using the URNs defined in
   Section 10.2.  Port registration is defined in Section 10.3

10.1.  Header Field Registrations

   HTTP header fields are registered within the "Message Headers"
   registry maintained at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-
   headers/>.

   This document defines the following HTTP header fields, so their
   associated registry entries shall be added according to the permanent
   registrations below (see [RFC3864]):

   +-------------------+----------+----------+--------------+
   | Header Field Name | Protocol | Status   | Reference    |
   +-------------------+----------+----------+--------------+
   | TTL               | http     | standard | Section 6.2  |
   | Push-Receipt      | http     | standard | Section 6.1  |
   +-------------------+----------+----------+--------------+

   The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet
   Engineering Task Force".








Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


10.2.  Link Relation URNs

   This document registers URNs for use in identifying link relation
   types.  These are added to a new "Web Push Identifiers" registry
   according to the procedures in Section 4 of [RFC3553]; the
   corresponding "push" sub-namespace is entered in the "IETF URN Sub-
   namespace for Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers" registry.

   The "Web Push Identifiers" registry operates under the IETF Review
   policy [RFC5226].

   Registry name:  Web Push Identifiers

   URN Prefix:  urn:ietf:params:push

   Specification:  (this document)

   Repository:  [Editor/IANA note: please include a link to the final
      registry location.]

   Index value:  Values in this registry are URNs or URN prefixes that
      start with the prefix "urn:ietf:params:push".  Each is registered
      independently.

   New registrations in the "Web Push Identifiers" are encouraged to
   include the following information:

   URN:  A complete URN or URN prefix.

   Description:  A summary description.

   Specification:  A reference to a specification describing the
      semantics of the URN or URN prefix.

   Contact:  Email for the person or group making the registration.

   Index value:  As described in [RFC3553], URN prefixes that are
      registered include a description of how the URN is constructed.
      This is not applicable for specific URNs.

   These values are entered as the initial content of the "Web Push
   Identifiers" registry.

   URN:  urn:ietf:params:push

   Description:  This link relation type is used to identify a resource
      for sending push messages.




Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   Specification:  (this document)

   Contact:  The Web Push WG (webpush@ietf.org)

   URN:  urn:ietf:params:push:set

   Description:  This link relation type is used to identify a
      collection of push message subscriptions.

   Specification:  (this document)

   Contact:  The Web Push WG (webpush@ietf.org)

   URN:  urn:ietf:params:push:receipts

   Description:  This link relation type is used to identify a resource
      for creating new push message receipt subscriptions.

   Specification:  (this document)

   Contact:  The Web Push WG (webpush@ietf.org)

10.3.  Service Name and Port Number Registration

   Service names and port numbers are registered within the "Service
   Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry" maintained at
   <https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-
   names-port-numbers.xhtml>.

   IANA is requested to assign the System Port number 1001 and the
   service name "webpush" in accordance with [RFC6335].

   Service Name.
      webpush

   Transport Protocol.
      tcp

   Assignee.
      IESG (iesg@ietf.org)

   Contact.
      The Web Push WG (webpush@ietf.org)

   Description.
      HTTP Web Push

   Reference.



Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


      [RFCthis]

   Port Number.
      1001

11.  Acknowledgements

   Significant technical input to this document has been provided by Ben
   Bangert, Kit Cambridge, JR Conlin, Matthew Kaufman, Costin Manolache,
   Mark Nottingham, Robert Sparks, Darshak Thakore and many others.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [CAP-URI]  Tennison, J., "Good Practices for Capability URLs", FPWD
              capability-urls, February 2014,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/capability-urls/>.

   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-alt-svc]
              Nottingham, M., McManus, P., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
              Alternative Services", draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-09 (work
              in progress), May 2015.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

   [RFC3553]  Mealling, M., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An
              IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol
              Parameters", BCP 73, RFC 3553, June 2003.

   [RFC3864]  Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
              Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
              September 2004.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5382]  Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P. Srisuresh,
              "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", RFC 5382, October
              2008.

   [RFC5988]  Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, October 2010.





Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


   [RFC6335]  Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
              Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
              Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
              Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", RFC 6335, August
              2011.

   [RFC6585]  Nottingham, M. and R. Fielding, "Additional HTTP Status
              Codes", RFC 6585, April 2012.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
              (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, June
              2014.

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
              (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014.

   [RFC7232]  Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
              (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232, June 2014.

   [RFC7240]  Snell, J., "Prefer Header for HTTP", RFC 7240, June 2014.

   [RFC7540]  Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol Version 2", RFC 7540, May 2015.

12.2.  Informative References

   [API]      Sullivan, B., Fullea, E., and M. van Ouwerkerk, "Web Push
              API", ED push-api, February 2015, <https://w3c.github.io/
              push-api/>.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July
              2013.

Appendix A.  Change Log

   [[The RFC Editor is requested to remove this section at
   publication.]]

A.1.  Since draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-00

   Editorial changes for Push Message Time-To-Live

   Editorial changes for Push Acknowledgements

   Removed subscription expiration based on HTTP cache headers




Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                HTTP Web Push                November 2015


A.2.  Since draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-01

   Added Subscription Sets

   Added System Port as an alternate service with guidance for idle
   timeouts

   Finalized status codes for acknowledgements

   Editorial changes for Rate Limits

Authors' Addresses

   Martin Thomson
   Mozilla
   331 E Evelyn Street
   Mountain View, CA  94041
   US

   Email: martin.thomson@gmail.com


   Elio Damaggio
   Microsoft
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA  98052
   US

   Email: elioda@microsoft.com


   Brian Raymor (editor)
   Microsoft
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA  98052
   US

   Email: brian.raymor@microsoft.com













Thomson, et al.           Expires May 26, 2016                 [Page 27]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/