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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Fri, 25 January 2013 00:55 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 5481E1F0CE4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:55:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.692, 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 BwxQIjt37N7u for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:55:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC4F1F0CB3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:55:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyXZH-0004jw-Am for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:54:55 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:54:55 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyXZH-0004jw-Am@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <hallam@gmail.com>) id 1TyXZA-0004ip-VS for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:54:48 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <hallam@gmail.com>) id 1TyXZ7-0006nm-7x for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:54:48 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hq7so1024230wib.5 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:54:19 -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=1IbeZ7u9u5TgmtB0HeoL0jNiZ8/WyLOOl400d1SUAwk=; b=wxv8hSgIcZC9vH3D1aEv9QiOnPkjhr00QO0WmWYPhWQrL0/YUiFeyAKP+U+yaWz/qe 6kGdAj4J3C8S1w+Q8O2YA/KTR21+PjenOFBWHOk1B/YBZBL+itVD4DKSph3JeilbcA9o JiO2YvM+gR56mONuJXjbrIZ9TLqldamdnO4NZA1fspL1LtX5b/oG+e0x8i9uNwMWJax9 30fVXO9e50LmGekzQaToBvI1h8eJW7D4oqf8jODTx5614W+QWcTQjYZ1T6uuCQn7WFBb bPOj6xOiXi1EcqKpmfEl6CA34yH74/xmrybxExrRzHYeYk4EqxNbpKMKHHcyvEhstddH RJGg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.78.207 with SMTP id d15mr6004061wjx.52.1359075259018; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.136.66 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:54:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <F1962646D3B64642B7C9A06068EE1E64177CED56@ex10.hostedexchange.local>
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+FsNdaEAwJ1Dk=pA2-59X_eN9rg3ApdsAucVq91Keb_QXvtQ@mail.gmail.com> <F1962646D3B64642B7C9A06068EE1E64177CED56@ex10.hostedexchange.local>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:54:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgGwJ7AR7OE17CiWHYM0T-REFX8b8J_m-PVgPoS7sEj-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bfcf91a096e3504d4125efb"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.212.170; envelope-from=hallam@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f170.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.064, 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: maggie.w3.org 1TyXZ7-0006nm-7x 4133db94a251ae4ce768767bdc512682
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/CAMm+LwgGwJ7AR7OE17CiWHYM0T-REFX8b8J_m-PVgPoS7sEj-A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16203
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 7:44 PM, Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org> wrote:

> 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?
>

Well this all goes back to Tim's original point that maybe we should have
had more than 6 hours discussion before a grad student just threw in the
<IMG> tag because he thought it would be cool and Eric had already written
the code for images in the widget.


When we moved from one request per TCP session to multiple requests per TCP
session it was not exactly done well. Each request is still formatted as if
it was running in a separate session and so it has to reconstruct the whole
browser context.

I don't see why we could not do a delta encoding on the headers as follows

Old:

Get /foo
Header1:
Header2:
Header3:

Get /bar
Header1:
Header2:
Header3:


New:

Get /foo
Fred:[
Header1:
Header2:
Header3:
]

Get /bar
#include Fred


The client knows when headers are likely to be repeated across requests in
the same session - they are mostly repeats anyway.



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/