INTERNET-DRAFT                                             Fabio Chiussi
Intended Status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: January 7, 2016

                                                            July 6, 2015

                  Subscription-Less Web Push Framework
          draft-chiussi-webpush-subscription-less-framework-00

Abstract

   Subscription is a integral part of the current Web Push service. This
   document describes a framework for making subscription more flexible
   to accommodate a number of use cases for Web Push.

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   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."


   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

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



Fang et al.            Expires <January 7, 2016>                [Page 1]

INTERNET DRAFT    Subscription-Less Web Push Framework      July 6, 2015


   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.


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2. Subscription-Less Web Push  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     5.1  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     5.2  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5



































Fang et al.            Expires <January 7, 2016>                [Page 2]

INTERNET DRAFT    Subscription-Less Web Push Framework      July 6, 2015


. Introduction

   The notion of subscription is one of the pillars of current Web Push
   service [I-D. draft-thomson-webpush-protocol][W3CAPI]. The need for
   explicit subscription from the User Agent (UA) stems from good
   reasons [RFC6973]. By its very nature, Web Push is an invasive
   service, which requires some form of explicit acceptance by the UA
   and some form of regulation by the Push Service to make sure that the
   push capabilities of different applications do not proliferate in
   such a way the volume and invasiveness of push traffic becomes
   uncontrollable.

   The need for explicit subscription, however, has its drawbacks.

   First, the mechanism is not scalable to a large number of
   subscriptions to different applications. This is intentional in the
   design, but also prevents the applicability of Web Push to some
   practical scenarios. This also makes it difficult to control the
   total volume Web Push traffic across applications directed to the
   same UA, without introducing excessive constraints. Some provisions
   to ameliorate this problem are included in [I-D. draft-thomson-
   webpush-protocol], but mechanisms for a global vision of Web Push
   traffic from a UA perspective are lacking.

   Second, and more importantly, the need for subscription makes it
   awkward to apply Web Push to a number of relevant use cases. At least
   three such use cases are becoming increasingly popular and would
   benefit of a more relaxed definition of the Web Push service.

   1. Emergency and Alert Services. These may include highly local
      services that can provide very useful and timely information to
      the users, but may fail to reach the users because of no
      subscription. Some of these services are addressed in [I-D. draft-
      nakajima-webpush-problem-statement], but a much wider variety of
      these services is emerging.

   2. Usage of Web Push to wake up the mobile device. This functionality
      is increasingly required in location based services, especially
      indoor, and especially delivered through multiple air interfaces
      such as WiFi, Small Cells, Bluetooth, etc.

   3. Usage of Web Push in Smart Building and other environments where
      the user has a manifested expectation of tapping into available
      services in an unsolicited fashion.

   These use cases, which are rapidly growing in popularity are an
   indication that some notion of "subscription-less Web Push," or more
   precisely Web Push with some form of relaxed subscription



Fang et al.            Expires <January 7, 2016>                [Page 3]

INTERNET DRAFT    Subscription-Less Web Push Framework      July 6, 2015


   requirements, is actually desirable and useful to increase the
   applicability of Web Push.

   This document introduces a framework for such a notion of
   "subscription-less" Web Push.

1.1. Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   This document uses the terminology defined in [I-D. draft-thomson-
   webpush-protocol].

. Subscription-Less Web Push

   TBD.

. Security Considerations

   TBD.

. IANA Considerations

   TBD.

. References

5.1  Normative References

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

   [I-D. draft-thomson-webpush-protocol]  M. Thomson et al., "Generic
              Event Delivery Using HTTP Push",  draft-thomson-webpush-
              protocol-00 (work in progress), April 2015.

5.2  Informative References

   [W3CAPI]   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.



Fang et al.            Expires <January 7, 2016>                [Page 4]

INTERNET DRAFT    Subscription-Less Web Push Framework      July 6, 2015


   [I-D. draft-nakajima-webpush-problem-statement]  H. Nakajima,
              "Problem Statement and Requirements for Emergency
              Notification using Web Push",  draft-nakajima-webpush-
              problem-statement-00 (work in progress), March 2015.

Authors' Addresses

   Fabio Chiussi
   Cisco Systems
   500 108th Avenue N.E., Suite 500
   Bellevue, WA 98004
   Email: fchiussi@cisco.com







































Fang et al.            Expires <January 7, 2016>                [Page 5]