Re: Multi-GET, extreme compression?

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 19 February 2013 04:45 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 960E621F8D66 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:45:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.761
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.761 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.216, 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 WNfg1l7y4o-0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C990721F845F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:45:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U7f4d-0006su-VJ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:44:59 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:44:59 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U7f4d-0006su-VJ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1U7f4V-0006sF-EV for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:44:51 +0000
Received: from caiajhbdcaib.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.81] helo=homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1U7f4U-0004Kq-LE for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:44:51 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDA9BC04A for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:44:29 -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=iw3qBoj/GP9iOPga3c0+ yZGWnzQ=; b=u3cIIN/h+f0rcfaqLH6r+GLEkkFD5KgYCxQlaM7rDcHuUo+Q7WHT YkfuOqAZp3NJthnIj3Jih44j/YDSx/8xh/BpuGLGRTJWbj+XiBUWWJy6bHfLoQb1 wq2AiFnGP2Ds651C3EPZAuKBNIFnvFe8TyOxEqDLTpF2LQ2IVEMbvY4=
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89A8DB4008 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:44:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id hm14so4324983wib.9 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:44:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.121.38 with SMTP id lh6mr22997285wjb.27.1361249068348; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:44:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.254.217 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:44:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E2C47AB2-03C6-48B7-A345-C896F44D7B86@mnot.net>
References: <CAMm+LwiF6EM8_aQgUm=nPS5XqaG25iRGNke_rnHTM1vTGMXdfg@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhBe8UdzqvNaA+pb+e=TZytsQQfp1S8pH2N_3GUk2mUgw@mail.gmail.com> <E2C47AB2-03C6-48B7-A345-C896F44D7B86@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:44:28 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOh0sLJBGdWpUqX6FAe40=FyKRWPyqMmMyAQF_Uy=94Z=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.81; envelope-from=nico@cryptonector.com; helo=homiemail-a85.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.449, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1U7f4U-0004Kq-LE f662533763fd1bc9ad98797467c047bd
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Multi-GET, extreme compression?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAK3OfOh0sLJBGdWpUqX6FAe40=FyKRWPyqMmMyAQF_Uy=94Z=g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16675
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 Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> On 19/02/2013, at 3:26 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> HTTP 1.1 has a request/response pattern. This covers 90% of needs but means
>>> that if the protocol is followed correctly forces a round trip delay on each
>>> content request. Which of course leads to various browsers pushing the
>>> envelope and pushing multiple requests out before responses have come back.
>>>
>>> With content streams this is not necessary of course... In fact that is
>>> pretty much the purpose of having streams.
>>>
>>> Which suggests a need for a Multi-GET method to allow a request for a list
>>> of content...
>>>
>>> If we had such a method then the format would be something like
>>>
>>> MGET <Common Headers> List <URI, Content header>
>>>
>>> And the typical communication pattern of a browser would be:
>>>
>>> GET /toplevel.html
>>> MGET </image1.jpg /image2.jpg ...>
>>>
>>> Given this particular communication pattern which has an implicit delta
>>> encoding, do we really need to worry about a separate delta encoding?
>>
>> The problem here is that the user-agent needs to get the top-level
>> resource first, then it will know the names of the other resources.
>> We can probably do better.
>
> Nico,
>
> If I understand you, you're talking about making some really fundamental changes to the Web Architecture, which is squarely out of the WG's charter.

Is Phillip's proposal also out of charter?

> I don't mind discussing ideas and understanding how we got here, so long as they don't distract from our work. I get the feeling that this is starting to happen.
>
> Again, if you have a proposal, please write it up in detail and make it to the WG; endlessly discussing the minutia of a half-formed idea is not a productive use of anyone's time.

I... posted twice on this, within minutes.

Nico
--