Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-webpush-protocol

1. Summary

The document shepherd is Shida Schubert. The responsible Area Director is
Alissa Cooper.

This document defines simple protocol for the delivery of real-time events to
user agents (web browsers etc.), using HTTP/2 server push. The working group is
quite sure that this will be a useful Standards Track extension.

2. Review and Consensus

The document has progressed and iterated very rapidly on github and through
discussion on the mailing list since its inception in June of 2015 and has gone
through two WGLCs and this version has had a rough consensus of the WG.

Many of the contributors are those from major browser vendors (Google,
Microsoft, Mozilla) but many from service provider and server software
manufacturers have been contributing to stabilize the specification as well.
This specification has been implemented and deployed in part and some deviation
of this specification has been deployed for some time in production environment
supporting the Tao of IETF both in rough consensus and a running code.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

- Proposed Standard
- The title page header indicates that it is a standard-track.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

This document defines a protocol which enables application server upon having
consensus from the user agent (a subscription) to push an event-driven message
called a push message (receipt of a call, a notification from a bank to
authorize a transaction) through an intermediate service called push service
that manages the subscription state and delivery of the push message.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd has read the draft and is confident that this document is
ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

We had contributors heavily involved in the development of HTTP2 (which the
specification depends on) to reviewing and actively contributing to the draft.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

Irrelevant as no IPR disclosures have been filed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG as a whole understand and agree with the current standing of
specification.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summaries the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)

We had one individual expressed discontent as the main driver/contributors of
the draft are from major browser vendors. The same individual had some issue
with lack of use-case specific feature (having the ability to send broadcast
style push messages) built into the protocol. As the shepherd of this document,
as enough contributors from non-major browser vendors and potential users of
the protocol were involved and were content with the document, I believe one
individual's discontent should not defer the progress of the document. As for
the lack of feature to support particular use-case this individual had raised,
the specification is able to support such use-cases without any protocol
mechanism, I see no reason to bloat the specification without a consensus to
add such feature.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

== Missing Reference: 'RFCthis' is mentioned on line 1217, but not defined

RFCthis will be replaced with the RFC number of this specification once it's
approved.

-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'CAP-URI'

This is not a downref.

** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2818

RFC2818 is the specification which defines HTTPS which this specification
normatively depends on (non-HTTPS allowed), so this again is not a downref.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

YES

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No problem here.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.

Yes, RFC2818 which defines HTTPS (HTTP over TLS).

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).

All the extensions defined in the draft are listed and specified in IANA
consideration sections.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

Not relevant. The web push identifiers registration creates a sub-namespaces
which follows the guidance of RFC3553 (requiring IETF consensus).
Back