Subject: [Jmap] Push mechanism

From: Neil Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:52:59 +1000

We talked a bit in Chicago about RFC 8030[1] and what mechanisms we
should support for push. Having looked at RFC8030 in a bit more detail,
the JMAP server is just the "Application Server" in this model (the
other two participants are the "UA" and the "Push Server"). We should
specify the behaviour such that it is compatible in this role, but not
constrain it further.  The  Web Hook[2] part of the current draft of the
JMAP spec basically already does this. I think we just need to add a few
headers to the calls to the push server to make it compliant: TTL, Topic
and Urgency.

This is a very flexible mechanism then, as the Push Server is up to the
UA. For example, the Apple iOS Mail.app would register the web hook with
their push server which would then trigger an APNS notification (not
RFC8030). Similarly an Android app would route the push via GCM. A
webmail client might have a push server that uses the rest of RFC8030 to
deliver the push messages.

Does this sound reasonable to everyone?

Neil.

Links:

  1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8030
  2. http://jmap.io/spec-core.html#web-hook

---

From: Neil Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:21:17 +1000

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, at 02:52 PM, Neil Jenkins wrote:
> should support for push. Having looked at RFC8030 in a bit more
> detail, the JMAP server is just the "Application Server" in this model
> (the other two participants are the "UA" and the "Push Server"). We
> should specify the behaviour such that it is compatible in this role,
> but not constrain it further.  The Web Hook[2] part of the current
> draft of the JMAP spec basically already does this. I think we just
> need to add a few headers to the calls to the push server to make it
> compliant: TTL, Topic and Urgency.
Can I take the lack of argument about this as consensus that this is the
right way forward? :)
Neil.

Links:

---

From: Aki Tuomi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:39:57 +0300 (EEST)

On April 19, 2017 at 8:21 AM Neil Jenkins wrote:

Fwiw, using existing standard is a good idea. Had a quick look and it looked ok.

Aki