Requesting TAG review of Push API

# Léonie Watson (2 months ago)

Hello TAG,

The WebPlat WG would welcome a TAG review of the Push API specification [1]. We'd like to transition to CR in the coming months, and this review will help us assess what remains to be done before then.

If you could file your comments as Github issues [2], before 16th June 2017, that would be appreciated.

Any questions, you know where to find us - please just ask.

Thanks Léonie [1] www.w3.org/TR/push-api [2] w3c/push-api

Contact us to advertise here
# Léonie Watson (25 days ago)

On 03/05/2017 15:36, Léonie Watson wrote:

Hello TAG,

The WebPlat WG would welcome a TAG review of the Push API specification [1]. We'd like to transition to CR in the coming months, and this review will help us assess what remains to be done before then.

If you could file your comments as Github issues [2], before 16th June 2017, that would be appreciated.

A quick ping to make sure you've filed any issues and/or do not have any comments? Thanks.

# chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile (24 days ago)

(Speaking personally)

20.06.2017, 17:42, "Léonie Watson" tink@tink.uk:

On 03/05/2017 15:36, Léonie Watson wrote:

Hello TAG,

The WebPlat WG would welcome a TAG review of the Push API specification [1]. We'd like to transition to CR in the coming months, and this review will help us assess what remains to be done before then.

I'm particularly concerned by issue 258 which it seems to me has security / privacy implications as a result of architectural choices: w3c/push-api#258

A thoughtful review from the TAG would be appreciated...

# Andrew Betts (3 days ago)

webapps,

We're sorry for the extended delay TAG replying to this. The TAG's workmode [https://tag.w3.org/workmode/](https://tag.w3.org/workmode/) [1] requests that people asking us for a

review open an issue on our issue tracker in GitHub, and as a result we have gotten out of the habit of monitoring the mailing list for such requests. That said, it's our responsibility to keep up with messages directed to us on our MLs and we're sorry we missed this one. At the very least, we should have redirected you to our tracker in a prompt reply, so to be clear we accept complete responsibility for the delay here.

First of all, I've opened an issue on the tracker [https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/184](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/184) [2]. I can confirm

that we would indeed be interested in providing a review, but I'd like to check first that it's not moot at this point first.

Second, we're interested to know if you prefer to raise review requests on the ML (over using Github issues) and if so, why, so we can, if appropriate, consider changes to the work mode of the TAG.

[1] tag.w3.org/workmode [2] w3ctag/design-reviews#184

Andrew

# Léonie Watson (3 days ago)

On 11/07/2017 17:03, Andrew Betts wrote:

Hi Leonie, webapps,

We're sorry for the extended delay TAG replying to this. The TAG's workmode [https://tag.w3.org/workmode/](https://tag.w3.org/workmode/) [1] requests that people asking us for a review open an issue on our issue tracker in GitHub, and as a result we have gotten out of the habit of monitoring the mailing list for such requests. That said, it's our responsibility to keep up with messages directed to us on our MLs and we're sorry we missed this one.
At the very least, we should have redirected you to our tracker in a prompt reply, so to be clear we accept complete responsibility for the delay here.

Thanks Andrew.

First of all, I've opened an issue on the tracker [https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/184](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/184) [2]. I can confirm that we would indeed be interested in providing a review, but I'd like to check first that it's not moot at this point first.

Not at all, we'd still welcome the TAG's review. If you're able to get the review done sooner rather than later it'd be appreciated though. The editor has been putting in a lot of good work on this spec, so getting it moved to Rec would be a good thing to do IMO.

Second, we're interested to know if you prefer to raise review requests on the ML (over using Github issues) and if so, why, so we can, if appropriate, consider changes to the work mode of the TAG.

No, not at all. Github is preferred (old habits die hard is the only reason it came via email).

No need to reply to this email (in the interests of not making things worse).

In future we'll file requests on Github though.

Léonie.

Want more features?

Request early access to our private beta of readable email premium.