IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Distributed Origins and Alt-Svc

Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> Wed, 13 October 2021 15:46 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 BB9233A0BA5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.995
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.499, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 0Am9r9RR7qjZ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 785993A0B9E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1magPe-0003ss-7W for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 15:43:26 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 15:43:26 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1magPe-0003ss-7W@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <bemasc@google.com>) id 1magPc-0003s6-Ka for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 15:43:24 +0000
Received: from mail-ua1-x935.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::935]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <bemasc@google.com>) id 1magPa-0006Ut-Mc for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 15:43:24 +0000
Received: by mail-ua1-x935.google.com with SMTP id i15so5487506uap.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xQ9lqbxAlu5IomLmDRPOfI52jqgTblqnC0Rg2X5QMyg=; b=LnEdqF1mhdt6sBeHUhCF/amC1jwu/dBYKwofRwmpGbRCdpgPHmhXDrFhDSgWzUjcza eHyKP6cn9rtcKtkVfzz2SYuNlVAkuVTNJGjKrlrILOi+0X0R0FlZ5Ct6fVFEBviMa5WZ 5aMtG8OafyICu0BIf719EsnX+LSL8zb8GxjSzogkFGVqhmhmH8tZ3tM9F8QRoLhZ4/Lu YUk8aqDUl5swaHNA2FyqsgKwOlYnZgG9SAq1JezjuDPhRXN/TwIEy6EqFm1je5QMkabW TdfS/CxSlvX7KvpSs1hyBUvNtXc3qnHgIw7men/ykfCjpwKaIgQJs7QAY57jQ2Nx+Zym YVJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xQ9lqbxAlu5IomLmDRPOfI52jqgTblqnC0Rg2X5QMyg=; b=v3YyzggzOrqImGxYzbIrF+P5zoCQSvEV/d4t1Eip+GOofk3KLlPiOJeubSYYeREBw5 o1hiNFBUaLHmpsz0I7ME+bEZIs1F9WZKm3ER9xn0RcKFpSzYPSSFuj1y9w/1YbIETzI+ 2U3i0ChiGyEVh7kEiVOAROpPjHxYQGvS7V6M6II1qiGW2NJruzSdDpiKG7K7vCf0t4fV bRloSCrhzKMqBeJ563FjZAeLNHszzHXpIulM9YyRozknWlu09FoJEAWBZ3OP/mvjoquy as8qG2X6HxPWWYjNa09PK9xVJbfuP3uBobXDQdS3r99N/IH9Hhw9PtfQ5W2cDq6gWz73 Ay/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5333ERbDIcJDmIzmcQ5C2ypfPWIqbM+j0/S62rONsS0pTESxfa3A GFO+FEQgmxoHYMlxAMOmfQttmX9/HtzM8w718018IPEE
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwpb4Z1bEAc+pxvxpeOHCbny7SXQq3XUWY0q0DvN63OhTICMH3tU1rF2sHSRPPdVGdIeEM24o1dXU0+bIUg2cE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:3f0f:: with SMTP id k15mr175860vsv.10.1634139791618; Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BLAPR22MB225903A281193765CD11D74CDAB19@BLAPR22MB2259.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLAPR22MB225903A281193765CD11D74CDAB19@BLAPR22MB2259.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
From: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:43:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsDFbN1bRXNkfVcWvD_qGh9xVx7c7Lqon+A+84v8QmGFXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="000000000000d1571c05ce3dd12e"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::935; envelope-from=bemasc@google.com; helo=mail-ua1-x935.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (address=bemasc@google.com domain=google.com), signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-21.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1magPa-0006Ut-Mc b290e72e5ac48a412b5fdc2bfc03b3e1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Distributed Origins and Alt-Svc
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAHbrMsDFbN1bRXNkfVcWvD_qGh9xVx7c7Lqon+A+84v8QmGFXA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/39468
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

It seems to me that HTTPS records and Cross-SNI Resumption should fully
minimize the performance penalties mentioned at the end of Section 2.1.
Without those concerns, is there enough motivation here to justify the
complexity?

On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:22 PM Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be> wrote:

> A problem I've been turning over in my head is dealing with "distributed
> origins," content libraries which are logically a single origin but are too
> large to actually be managed by a single host.  There are several obvious
> examples on the Internet at large.  An extension to Alt-Svc seems like a
> potential avenue to address it, but other properties of Alt-Svc would
> require other modifications to work smoothly.
>
> This draft explores the problem and looks at one possible solution set.
> I'm not totally happy with that solution, because it has too many moving
> parts, but I still see it as a useful starting point.  I'd be interested to
> have feedback from folks, and ideas for other ways to address the scenario.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 12:00 PM
> To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
> Subject: New Version Notification for
> draft-bishop-httpbis-distributed-origin-00.txt
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-bishop-httpbis-distributed-origin-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Mike Bishop and posted to the IETF
> repository.
>
> Name:           draft-bishop-httpbis-distributed-origin
> Revision:       00
> Title:          Distributed HTTP Origins: Solution Space Exploration
> Document date:  2021-10-04
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          9
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bishop-httpbis-distributed-origin-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bishop-httpbis-distributed-origin/
> Html:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bishop-httpbis-distributed-origin-00.html
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bishop-httpbis-distributed-origin
>
>
> Abstract:
>    Certain content libraries are logically a single origin, but too
>    large to be practically served by a single origin server.  This
>    document discusses existing solutions and explores possible
>    directions for future protocol development.
>
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email