IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 24 January 2013 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 113EB21F852B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:50:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.952
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JXcRcdqzNMVk for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:49:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E18821F8570 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:49:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyVbx-0005II-53 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:49:33 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:49:33 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyVbx-0005II-53@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1TyVbr-0005HZ-C7 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:49:27 +0000
Received: from caiajhbdcbbj.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.119] helo=homiemail-a25.g.dreamhost.com) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1TyVbq-000230-Iq for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:49:27 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a25.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a25.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C81678058 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:49:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=eZE0pHf3ytcpOFQxaG34 lr7IWxc=; b=lYGiGzebOWxpSO5tTYq4e7Q6y8nD1tJYiz92QPuzjMsTnH4qb0p/ Of8RcO6vMtYOTiCyW6lsY0vdC/kuA6Y50G9EhXH+cE9OD6UQO2gPXEBS0wm8Cl+a hwAPSmh0Kuf/11AOqKJx9+1acxVI48wsJFlhdReH8SxG1A/lHEWdajQ=
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com [209.85.212.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a25.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C2D8678055 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:49:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hq12so959524wib.4 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:49:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.77.234 with SMTP id v10mr5707187wiw.20.1359067743919; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:49:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.39.133 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:49:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwja9+LMwH8jdKYJqTheGKAHmWX+bCGkVUz3ocMKnjn1HQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwgTSw05QLUspAbAyRSWfd8j27fhwPiDSF_TaD8LevftBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NEPLt=GkO575MfCi2aW4X+w40CzOVB05Z1+_rmLMXXSpw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwhJvSXgPzdqv2GscD-mfR4O7R_bba5JnAbdmP+uR+6SYA@mail.gmail.com> <510155E3.5020208@gmx.de> <CAMm+LwhCtd-m5uJnv+vcTTq9WcR3bEDQndV2cZqQE1ApNasCXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYh3uP228QKjMwtTT2QQb9ypijdHPY-CkZF36j6DuTH4+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgqYmwomf_3XFmqkS9bLTCEAaTt=f9bFuqhTfFzjFk3AQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYj3rDUQQ4crdyJrun=2-MwOGQ32qRfv5oJKrx=JciqOCA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhbOnCHCp7fKeG6QLKcdoYhAXcL1nkW6220+9xb-W5Gyw@mail.gmail.com> <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC302772111990734@IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com> <CAP+FsNfB2WPkMTtjzVeJbuQPrz_srRm8ReGnx4WQi4LGmJ2Xzw@mail.gmail.com> <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC3027721119908B4@IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com> <CAP+FsNe5hOQ=j7VGfUhfYUAj6p8dYiDE6hATtkUwahSi-89mJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwja9+LMwH8jdKYJqTheGKAHmWX+bCGkVUz3ocMKnjn1HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:49:03 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOiMb4ReGLvbn+KiJ1R-Az39RGFs8RnFZP6DfxAR1BScZg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.119; envelope-from=nico@cryptonector.com; helo=homiemail-a25.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.903, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1TyVbq-000230-Iq 10c336947d2c6478eb416ceae4a50b4c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAK3OfOiMb4ReGLvbn+KiJ1R-Az39RGFs8RnFZP6DfxAR1BScZg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16193
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 Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
> We did know about compression libraries back in '92. Latency was a much
> bigger concern back in those days when the whole of CERN was hanging off a
> not much more than a T1 and we had 10base ethernet.
>
> The idea of header compression was rejected back then as a silly
> optimization and I really can't understand why anyone thinks the situation
> has changed to make it less silly.

It has changed to make that less silly: web pages are now huge in
terms of discrete resources that have to be fetched.  Also, many, many
more users use the web, and they are less patient than CERN researches
might have been back when the web was a great, shiny new tool.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email