Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP

Jacob Champion <champion.p@gmail.com> Tue, 13 December 2016 17:47 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 A8330129524 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:47:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-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 (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 2fvPPtHzNC05 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:47:27 -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 35592129454 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:47:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cGr8A-00079b-BP for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:44:46 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:44:46 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cGr8A-00079b-BP@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 <champion.p@gmail.com>) id 1cGr83-00078J-2y for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:44:39 +0000
Received: from mail-pg0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <champion.p@gmail.com>) id 1cGr7w-0005rC-Ti for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:44:33 +0000
Received: by mail-pg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id x23so49948010pgx.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:44:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ovM/DmKeWsAmtzI17gqSHZUwhJDpIDNRF7FDUoy3g6U=; b=Y/tKI5Xd0msVYG4b539pYuHMSZiX33AxNvNJJESJwXhYs+cnSmJoHjaYvPStgMXv2i /CNoMy3IKUkgDJtDHKlvEz78QPjaba6JmOsXt3mskp6zrrekol/0F+7YJmJ4nacyzg58 kof61IZOG8TypCz8ppIGPGOCz8BgZ6chZiLju1DjztStcs0Y4TCWj3YmMY2IdhE+WYXW B4lih1HWz9RvsMLUmsIHq1N8xhPSwwgOGplPF3I6EXR4GYtDZ/BtaAvalQgRGC/Q1OzK +vUNmkvCsFfYEnrlE/kmBnwvbIxilVmmf5Zxd/mjFOk+x/RbUHiy0dErOlDuovGUscbm +ZSA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ovM/DmKeWsAmtzI17gqSHZUwhJDpIDNRF7FDUoy3g6U=; b=BpX0rMj21lwMnGYT2NhP8Qsxz/C6HkdlmQshsD5yJ8wXgyXSjHEOmQfwh7QD57MGe9 DKtd+g83A1EoKVBdi2fMzjWFcpSooHdkf0j9njuV7bgN/QaF8kpr2XkMNGGi4BBERqR7 g6N20Jxj4JLwg2fDdqKCi3gkzJ/2zHI/f77g7GtVzt7s7AbBaOqzGDIFd7Hj8azK369E SXPDWmeyK1wllgO/p1opqa0L7avunWh1kFdt1FnxmdnUhEGzbscD9n06PsMdmF0IXJUW IriYONWJ0a4dpVPHsOOCuBv9sH2ct1yLK1Nw0ipWfN4e471PAP0TK3vUT1ZH+PYk2s+/ 0EfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02X3F5x11fYopYUjRQS8R1L9bmo/sfykgiU1f/dMNKZR5Y7o7IiCMxtx5F+rVw7FA==
X-Received: by 10.84.142.1 with SMTP id 1mr195369144plw.87.1481651046270; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:44:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (50-39-112-180.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net. [50.39.112.180]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 129sm81892921pgj.26.2016.12.13.09.44.05 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:44:05 -0800 (PST)
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
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> <CAOdDvNpixFvywEUHwomVzQW2pNT5+=gn2ZMEgNmGPMDNkVMr7w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jacob Champion <champion.p@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <35077770-8042-9a5c-9d3f-af997710cb10@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:44:04 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNpixFvywEUHwomVzQW2pNT5+=gn2ZMEgNmGPMDNkVMr7w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.83.41; envelope-from=champion.p@gmail.com; helo=mail-pg0-f41.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cGr7w-0005rC-Ti 9df3de091c3718c7fbc8d81c34655fb5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/35077770-8042-9a5c-9d3f-af997710cb10@gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33164
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 12/13/2016 08:22 AM, Patrick McManus wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
> <mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>> wrote:
>     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 :)

It might be hard(er) to find people who feel like they *need* mux... my 
guess is that since the one-connection-per-subprotocol rule is absolute 
for WS/1, anyone who wants to scale up to large numbers of clients will 
have already consolidated their application concerns into a single 
subprotocol to avoid connection overhead.

Mux would open up new architectures -- now, if you need to use four 
separate subprotocols, you can just use them; you don't need to merge 
them and reinvent the wheel out of fear of exhausting TCP slots. 
(Obviously mux isn't a magic bullet for performance, as evidenced by the 
priority/weighting stuff, but I think it would change things up 
significantly.)

--Jacob