IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Thu, 24 January 2013 23:05 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 7F11111E80BF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:05:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.156, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 tON62IMrqKT5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:05:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B2811E809A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyVrF-0006dt-Uh for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:05:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:05:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyVrF-0006dt-Uh@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1TyVr9-0006cI-OP for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:05:15 +0000
Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com ([209.85.217.169]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1TyVr9-0002T5-56 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:05:15 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id m4so6948445lbo.14 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:04:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bVfU1LWUer+FoawPAXn8HAv61XpyZaSaBKK06EJbKHE=; b=zdCghccnBwc+n4/No14wpTn6GP5Z0g173AVyCohTElDo5oBvB3G8e3PVGxxfxSD0K8 hIUKzQ+MljARNcWUrDa2P0zW/sJoNjx1nJrhck+cs5DF8J90yxVjCunJq7nF+F8irg6d vWyf0hTH1BcRJoxM8Z9v9MwwKp5cmydVoYpFfFjjyKixbNnjkivDFaK3pPclDbbG5zfY rM8fbg262/XrOM87l9M8VXzUKe+1AGVEnOgZA2o9EpHlYi4FyfjyhHP27I9HKoQIjp2f jd8qfgMd8BGrGjyXh03yC1yM0lJArIaq+kDWB5MhehOj3olryE10rCL+dD1C5al46lCw mHvQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.104.199 with SMTP id gg7mr3327750lab.14.1359068688282; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:04:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.81.5 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:04:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOgQwj2nuadOUrtgJefHw3zrauXRGz1-nNtbud9RiBuWiA@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> <CAP+FsNfAfdP3_0oZpozYr-+xaCpVUgS28uKXM1uG9VKOL9br8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOjVZxAZe3Rh=kZe80xFBEJ3+QtiVJm2UpP14DAsOrB35Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOgQwj2nuadOUrtgJefHw3zrauXRGz1-nNtbud9RiBuWiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:04:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcbPPcqJAc5FOJogsnBDQ41eg-=XAiYSi6Mfy3-j1eQ4Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d040890c163f35b04d410d645"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.217.169; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f169.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.539, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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 1TyVr9-0002T5-56 0f29ba0fa168636337a4407167e337e0
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/CAP+FsNcbPPcqJAc5FOJogsnBDQ41eg-=XAiYSi6Mfy3-j1eQ4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16198
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 3:01 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>wrote:

> I mean, we have spent a great deal of effort over the last couple of
> decades to minimize state in general, in TCP TCBs in particular, and
> so on.  We've done that for a reason.
>
> Also, there had better be a bound to stateful compression state size,
> and therefore, deterministic synchronization or a synchronization
> protocol (which would... add latency).
>

There is a bound, and the receiver (likely the server or proxy) gets to
decide what it is.


>
> It's not at all obvious to me that stateful compression is a good
> idea.  It is clear that only stateful compression can do something
> about values that get repeated a lot, like cookies and URL prefixes,
> but I'm not sure that's worth the trouble.
>

Is saving seconds on page-load times worth the trouble? I ask because that
is what we've seen in experiments...
-=R


>
> Nico
> --
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email