IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Giving the Framing Layer a real name

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Wed, 27 February 2013 19:16 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 AF47621F8AD0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:16:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.411
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.411 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.187, 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 XpwY+2s+dc+5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:16:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D82521F8AD4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:16:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UAmU2-0005H4-P2 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:16:06 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:16:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UAmU2-0005H4-P2@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UAmTt-0005EH-Ca for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:15:57 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.219.42]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UAmTs-0004Mr-HG for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:15:57 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id i18so1985271oag.29 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:15:30 -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=SQUGR0+4siR2LrSOfT6Jif7s5udkcA/HLvtXAp7g08w=; b=Z/wo3bgnKBS5jgPZbFlKUUpQsw3/Bxnme15ltTcR3owG+j+H6Iu1lSp3v9+afQK8Q8 W9n2SXJqry1dGwJ5g2TpXcaz7DBW5s54UtII4DuBO4ZeJojdtiaXq0i1dhO6PFetguDK PdpFlwJoeaZpKjFczFbhg4d/O6TbTkmifE+t/Fb5s3ksA/rIuNQcMFkW6wr77bdMxgDO KQ6nR092hnIMd3GbKGauXDpho1ZJzfLOao/9WueU0e2E27jfb0ccqhnMd9zu7NvAJ/p1 emAcwvPy/VsZomzC/vItl4n/Nt5ZygKNG6XVGF698GCpoYr7GMB0jUE7nOA4EGxdmaFE Db0w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.172.84 with SMTP id ba20mr3361595oec.10.1361992530210; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:15:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.109.72 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:15:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWsTNzSYTuSkVWTHaUMsygA+8A3aP-W+00SXd0=xrLbYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5479F0BA-C5E0-4DA0-BFA4-ECE174388C3F@mnot.net> <CABaLYCv9FdOoCooFZ4s0G4E0EHGQUEizJAGYB-BGoya7B90_9A@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUWYR_scokR6DbBoFdD3ZqYF6gWqcis94tA9mHTD0o9cQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7Rbe5CyLFjRCRUtE8ZwO+4hdDF=2iuvaPNNqqWRCBzpT+PA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNcgQExR0mheLSE+D5Vo_B66oPBQfPhtszv3=icDuyGGYw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWsTNzSYTuSkVWTHaUMsygA+8A3aP-W+00SXd0=xrLbYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:15:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdvK8OiF_S2aGgHipAvUwD9uEq7eB+9h_4A8-WwYMg_YQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec55408acf3387104d6b998bb"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.42; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f42.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.719, BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 1UAmTs-0004Mr-HG 35796bcfb1af8ad964d91a5391003927
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Giving the Framing Layer a real name
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNdvK8OiF_S2aGgHipAvUwD9uEq7eB+9h_4A8-WwYMg_YQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16893
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 Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 27 February 2013 10:51, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Then you can't do websockets, etc or whatever other protocol (maybe
> video?,
> > who knows) the web platform decides to do in the future on the same
> > socket/session.
>
> Not true.  Write another RFC that says how you can share the
> connection with websockets.  That might have to change some of the
> rules, loosen some of the constraints, add some features.
>

We have enough to do here without worrying about it, but there you go.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zUEFzz7NCls3Yms8hXxY4wGXJ3EEvoZc3GihrqPQcM0/edit


>
> > That would be a poor tradeoff.. and for what gain?
> > What is the additional complexity of having the framing allow for non
> HTTP
> > semantics?
>
> The cost is in building generality.  Generality in engineering is
> never general enough to solve unforeseen problems, and it never ever
> comes with a zero complexity cost.
>


When I have a session with a client, I'd like to minimize my resource use,
and provide maximal bandwidth/memory prioritization so that the client's
experience is the best that I can give.
This is neither a theoretical nor insubstantial problem.


-=R

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email