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 [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 [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT Subscription-Less Web Push Framework July 6, 2015 1. 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 [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]. 2. Subscription-Less Web Push TBD. 3. Security Considerations TBD. 4. IANA Considerations TBD. 5. 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, . [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 [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 [Page 5]