Re: Multi-GET, extreme compression?

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 19 February 2013 04:39 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 1A22321F8D62 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:39:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.197, 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 E2z34Bmy7X9H for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:39:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F10021E803A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:39:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U7eyB-0004fe-Gt for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:38:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:38:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U7eyB-0004fe-Gt@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1U7ey3-0004bx-I0 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:38:11 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1U7ey0-00048o-SI for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 04:38:11 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.197.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5AD72509B7; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:37:45 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOhBe8UdzqvNaA+pb+e=TZytsQQfp1S8pH2N_3GUk2mUgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:37:42 +1100
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E2C47AB2-03C6-48B7-A345-C896F44D7B86@mnot.net>
References: <CAMm+LwiF6EM8_aQgUm=nPS5XqaG25iRGNke_rnHTM1vTGMXdfg@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhBe8UdzqvNaA+pb+e=TZytsQQfp1S8pH2N_3GUk2mUgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.306, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1U7ey0-00048o-SI 4912445bbf8d16c411dc0c85716d3fbb
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Multi-GET, extreme compression?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E2C47AB2-03C6-48B7-A345-C896F44D7B86@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16674
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 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.

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.

Thanks,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/