Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Tue, 13 December 2016 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41B5129B9E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:28:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sendgrid.me
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O7xbrbNLoYYw for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:28:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BCA9129BCD for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:26:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cGprw-0005Vr-9e for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:23:56 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:23:56 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cGprw-0005Vr-9e@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1cGpri-0005UE-37 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:23:42 +0000
Received: from o1.7nn.fshared.sendgrid.net ([167.89.55.65]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1cGprW-0003oW-V8 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:23:36 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sendgrid.me; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=smtpapi; bh=QCJk/I5pzdKhIo08kN6MMkvnQTQ=; b=sHdnVbSWzthC95rXID r9S1VagsgdxGPCfvmBkEqDLtCGn3L7qpUwZzNpDJDNqaKN5cYLSdj86LNNseDSLK C7fpgHknPswh0e9O66jfyOH4E+pZSv3OD7e1O9QiqZXufl2eEFkL5cvWksmzy17d FbxB7gWzAC0UtbQ55FLk/y20Y=
Received: by filter0635p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0635p1mdw1-19194-5850205E-64 2016-12-13 16:22:54.688514626 +0000 UTC
Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by ismtpd0003p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id jjGp6kozQbmk4U398Ndbww for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:22:54.590 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-f174.google.com with SMTP id h30so236045151iod.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:22:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02k6s3sW3wBJOyTYdcgKvh+Dq4EizpG4/m56LUYz8t76JXYLIN3ZCuDhlM4i7QStyRw7kUQ3qv9FnFjdA==
X-Received: by 10.36.203.2 with SMTP id u2mr3073415itg.47.1481646174136; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:22:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.19.16 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:22:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <b9874e30-24dd-56d2-896b-aab2848638b5@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <CAOdDvNqk7W_oNWUismMb-ZuhvdboZNDQ0YV2BLsbka-FGC-7oA@mail.gmail.com> <39F32B28-7116-478A-B02A-E8310EA6E189@mnot.net> <CABkgnnVZeLQGES5Dige8u+ukSgqSfJNKiCuL=oK3gQnAb_3LNw@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzwoUYaC_YPTTF6fdwN5aOiwrttyH9Xj7xYVR1i1DZ27bA@mail.gmail.com> <037D2D57-7423-4375-9FEC-50B3106F42ED@mnot.net> <CANatvzx=mOQ3kE-vnvwNvD2w26+RNTueHgu7BhHLnJixn0vRcw@mail.gmail.com> <9e6f1a46-a782-a688-5b16-836d28032823@treenet.co.nz> <1480646012.4219.21.camel@warmcat.com> <CAOdDvNqShPUdu6zt-dPDpXm31eP2xX_dahrTr8JEbOOGQFFNSw@mail.gmail.com> <b9874e30-24dd-56d2-896b-aab2848638b5@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:22:53 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpixFvywEUHwomVzQW2pNT5+=gn2ZMEgNmGPMDNkVMr7w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpixFvywEUHwomVzQW2pNT5+=gn2ZMEgNmGPMDNkVMr7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=C3=BCrst?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0b0174e4789b05438ca1c9
X-SG-EID: YLWet4rakcOTMHWvPPwWbcsiUJbN1FCn0PHYd/Uujh4DOVz6tdtEVYcRuHni98EhCbEt2Xe1CrtQzm SR24NNzo92kEmWkaFFpZGO3/4NOSOvJx+61zec7ehV6ajkX5LqAK8nnM/CX7FZ7Wu+xk3FiLscZ4ga 6cAiAy+9VnF7hOCAPvbUKbaZqzfrh7F8VQsoe6nASOj+9/spaINpGfWWd7hV9zBn9yaj6VO+OhkrzN s=
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=167.89.55.65; envelope-from=bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net; helo=o1.7nn.fshared.sendgrid.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.728, BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.099, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cGprW-0003oW-V8 18de099092d1bda7444621376046affb
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNpixFvywEUHwomVzQW2pNT5+=gn2ZMEgNmGPMDNkVMr7w@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33161
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
wrote:


> My understanding is that H1 is, despite keep-alive and pipelining and all
> that, essentially request-response-done,


H1 is request response, but as used in 6455 that request response is simply
used to bootstrap into a totally different protocol that has control of the
TCP channel at which point its request/response properties are not germane.


>
>>
> I sure also would like to see some data. But then, has the lack of mux in
> H1 been a problem?


yes it is the most serious, imo, problem with h1. Trying to attack it with
an increase in H1 parallelism leads to congestion control and priority
sub-optimalities, and trying to work around it with pipelines creates
unworkable head of line problems. mux and priority were the answers to that
and they are really the key features of h2.


> If no, why is it in H2? If yes, why is it a problem for HTTP, but not for
> WS?
>
>
It could be a problem for ws - but the advocates for the work have not
embraced that argument. Differences in workloads might be the
differentiator. dunno. that's why I started the thread :)


>
>