IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 24 January 2013 22:58 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 044851F0CDF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:58:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.869, 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 ZGN1YGPy6Qp9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:58:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68E6321F84F6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:58:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyVkG-0000ZN-0B for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:58:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:58:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyVkG-0000ZN-0B@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1TyVkB-0000Yi-Ma for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:58:03 +0000
Received: from caiajhbdcagg.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.66] helo=homiemail-a33.g.dreamhost.com) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1TyVkA-0002GU-7D for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:58:03 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a33.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a33.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F077594059 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:57:41 -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=VGgixxW7E6xeZ5TOArkD 1Xia6LQ=; b=Oy8H/ulGiACfCtyD5zmIPFLi6dsvHzoH0MAwrFq82la66yR/Gndl /kZT9BuW8XbFOIrp3T4NJum5ATcOYhwnNwi4gZz7GkUcvBzhMULn6Ngz55jSUBIj Aj/5USfqivXbroX9oB8txDUbflFG1oZQkV/SF0AphS4IGqQ96qQDk7U=
Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a33.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37CCC594061 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:57:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id hn17so933633wib.6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:57:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.8.130 with SMTP id r2mr5609227wia.28.1359068259690; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:57:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.39.133 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:57:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNfAfdP3_0oZpozYr-+xaCpVUgS28uKXM1uG9VKOL9br8Q@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>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:57:39 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOjVZxAZe3Rh=kZe80xFBEJ3+QtiVJm2UpP14DAsOrB35Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.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: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.66; envelope-from=nico@cryptonector.com; helo=homiemail-a33.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.758, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1TyVkA-0002GU-7D dcc249e7606ef29466e047431a065af3
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/CAK3OfOjVZxAZe3Rh=kZe80xFBEJ3+QtiVJm2UpP14DAsOrB35Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16195
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 4:46 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you worried about devices with extremely limited code-space/memory?

Or extreme load.  Yes, I am.  If memory pressure on servers and middle
boxes results in higher connection turnover then we might well still
have a problem.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email