IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Implementation Notes on Server Push

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Wed, 15 May 2013 22:01 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 90F2C11E80D9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 15:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.565, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a8EhHTjJioP8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 15:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9B011E80D2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2013 15:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UcjkQ-0007Hj-L3 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 15 May 2013 22:00:34 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 22:00:34 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UcjkQ-0007Hj-L3@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <patrick.ducksong@gmail.com>) id 1UcjkF-0007Gu-C4 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 15 May 2013 22:00:23 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <patrick.ducksong@gmail.com>) id 1UcjkE-0006wL-7D for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 15 May 2013 22:00:23 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id un3so2633746obb.33 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 15 May 2013 14:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=JILyfhuh79aB5Yb2VyHwlAO/cvB8gsvX36aVwH4Y32s=; b=Ee9n5M09DLmP2nEu46d9mT6Z87ggYv3DodZwuPFg5JHnMn7TjKiSrVyvQJEncTVk5h YRG/olz43CkaoMhNijBEZ6gfB9Ouawzg/3Ce2szNloKJ6eLy4wJ8J6stOrrelb0k28qH wYkivIHYbTu6oXIOk8VPEUoT0OsaaERO/Y7vsX8Hf5DzH6JDmvEJDoCWulnc8r8tVQSm KoQ26QqMLcAWhz5KEC0Nf6An0kVJQkSJekEFJk39EtYvZCrYRr39BKqav5TRRXNK0q/e ck0hq20cbMwPu0aTS0U6A8wdzzydVOjC9ZQpqNbrqlRUO2KIV4yzF24RcPYcbBRvO9+5 4GIg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.171.99 with SMTP id at3mr18445771obc.25.1368655196215; Wed, 15 May 2013 14:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: patrick.ducksong@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.13.193 with HTTP; Wed, 15 May 2013 14:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYh7+B5OvN5J-ODeDw9pwAGiJhuxzaNff6nWv6=NQwp99A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOdDvNqXhG7+xbvBwctQCR4tZePKByw75SR5oBamXTymZa7myA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYhmCdpa0pn5f4tRkbpcjsPOxUJvBunvNwkB9FSEinL41Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNoJfnrpBU9fexqty=CP0W-nDXA8iUJORqH6zaMaXqicbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYh7+B5OvN5J-ODeDw9pwAGiJhuxzaNff6nWv6=NQwp99A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 17:59:56 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: dSxLvuF54IQPewJQoFU8oohvQG8
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpU7ZRGy29z+SYi=rexMPzaYx5CcSN+faitfRGVjQosjw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff1cf86ca613e04dcc8de87"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.174; envelope-from=patrick.ducksong@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f174.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.551, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UcjkE-0006wL-7D 1b10c0119c6d357ba30e4337e31cde04
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Implementation Notes on Server Push
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNpU7ZRGy29z+SYi=rexMPzaYx5CcSN+faitfRGVjQosjw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18012
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 Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:41 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

>
>> Its a particular quandary on mobile. The RTT is certainly costlier.. but
>> storage is costlier too and more importantly to me the data transfer can be
>> exceptionally expensive.
>>
>
> When you say storage, do you mean memory or disk?
>

could be either, or both. depending on deployment.



> What do you think about SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS vs flow control
> here?
>

deserves experimentation.. though flow control seems more fine grained to
me.


> Also, when you say an established sink, how about the browser cache?
>

For a pretty significant set of deployments I would rather wait 1 rtt than
deal with storage i/o :)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email