IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Robert Brewer" <fumanchu@aminus.org> Fri, 25 January 2013 00:46 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 5A91A21F8421 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:46:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ineANfZeBSYO for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:46:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CE3321F872D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyXPm-0002Z3-2U for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:45:06 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:45:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyXPm-0002Z3-2U@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fumanchu@aminus.org>) id 1TyXPg-00089X-Ef for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:45:00 +0000
Received: from bh1.myhostedexchange.com ([69.50.2.150]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fumanchu@aminus.org>) id 1TyXPd-0006XJ-WD for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:45:00 +0000
Received: from ex10.myhostedexchange.com ([69.50.2.150]) by bh1.myhostedexchange.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:44:36 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:44:30 -0800
Message-ID: <F1962646D3B64642B7C9A06068EE1E64177CED56@ex10.hostedexchange.local>
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNdaEAwJ1Dk=pA2-59X_eN9rg3ApdsAucVq91Keb_QXvtQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?
Thread-Index: Ac36hd9Ho8OrlDl9QjeUqBlFHZqeAQADuH2A
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> <CAP+FsN daEAwJ1Dk=pA2-59X_eN9rg3ApdsAucVq91Keb_QXvtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Cc: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jan 2013 00:44:36.0111 (UTC) FILETIME=[262C21F0:01CDFA95]
Received-SPF: none client-ip=69.50.2.150; envelope-from=fumanchu@aminus.org; helo=bh1.myhostedexchange.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: none
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1TyXPd-0006XJ-WD e58eb7b5c753cead04740a9af623ca30
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/F1962646D3B64642B7C9A06068EE1E64177CED56@ex10.hostedexchange.local>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16200
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>

Roberto Peon wrote:
> The worst part is the high latency, especially given TCP's
> current cogestion avoidance implementations-- the total number
> of round-trips ends up dominating latency, regardless of how
> much bandwidth one has.

Why is this being addressed by trying to make the messages smaller? Wouldn't following the original architecture of HTTP, which was optimized for fewer, larger messages, also reduce latency?


Robert Brewer
fumanchu@aminus.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email