Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-browser-hints-00.txt
Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Tue, 17 May 2011 05:38 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 0525EE0721 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2011 22:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.074
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.074 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.525, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 PxzaFxqKTc3s for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2011 22:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FEDDE06B9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 16 May 2011 22:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1QMCyd-0007HE-GL for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 17 May 2011 05:37:51 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1QMCvc-0005ty-1h for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 17 May 2011 05:34:44 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1QMCvZ-0002Qx-97 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 17 May 2011 05:34:43 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p4H5YGUp028390; Tue, 17 May 2011 07:34:16 +0200
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 07:34:16 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110517053416.GB26443@1wt.eu>
References: <20110517042149.2176.20778.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1603FA8A-5BBC-4574-815A-2E13850F1D52@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1603FA8A-5BBC-4574-815A-2E13850F1D52@mnot.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1QMCvZ-0002Qx-97 1eb32a8739883a76ef2ddfc3eb4a37eb
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-browser-hints-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20110517053416.GB26443@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/10550
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1QMCyd-0007HE-GL@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 05:37:51 +0000
Hi Mark, On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:23:29PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-http-browser-hints-00.txt While I have still not replied to your previous mail about the pipelining draft, I must say that I like this new proposal a lot more than the old one. I think that default values should be indicated for all values there. For instance, if a site complies with this draft and delivers a browser-hints file, it means that it's likely to comply with many of the server requirements, so pipelining should be supported for instance. Thus, we could reasonably suggest that max-pipeline-depth is non-zero when not specified. For "small-hdrs", we should explicitly indicate what Accept* header values will be used by the server when they are not sent by the browser. Concerning the no-referer, we're risking that people always ask for a referer header to be sent because they want to see how they're indexed. My suggestion would be that we provide the ability not to send a referer header for requests coming from the same site (eg: fetching images from a site's page enlarges all requests for nothing). That could probably be combined with the new Ref header you're proposing with various options : - no referer from the same site - relative referer only without query string - relative referer only with query string - full referer I'm seeing a minor issue though : we're mixing there two distinct pieces of information. We have infrastructure-related information (pipelining, concurrent persistent connections, etc...) and application informationn (referer, ...). Some large hosting infrastructures I know will like the connection related informations to be directly delivered from outer shared reverse proxies for all hosted sites, while the application-specific information will be delivered from hosted applications. Eg: one app will want the referer while another won't care, however neither knows what to announce for pipelining or persistent conns. Thus we should probably have two distinct well known files. In order to reduce the number of requests, we could suggest that if the browser-hints file does not contain any connection information, then the browser is invited to get /.well-known/connection-hints too as a complement. Anyway I don't think that fetching two files is an issue, considering that the connection-specific one would be cached much longer. While we're at it, the same file could be used to announce the configured keep-alive timeout so that browsers don't try to send requests over supposedly dead connections. Regards, Willy
- Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-browser-hi… Mark Nottingham
- Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-browse… Willy Tarreau
- Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-browser-hin… Mark Nottingham