IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 25 January 2013 00:54 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 27E491F0CE4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:54:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.454, 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 U7F-bgoksi2T for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:54:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199491F0CB3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:54:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyXY6-0004bP-Rn for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:53:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:53:42 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyXY6-0004bP-Rn@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1TyXY1-0004ab-GM for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:53:37 +0000
Received: from caiajhbdcahe.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.74] helo=homiemail-a73.g.dreamhost.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1TyXXz-0006le-Ch for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:53:37 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a73.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a73.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AFE81F0085 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:53:14 -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=G4PP5AA8BRSY7MBpG2Z+ By5C8Yg=; b=HgndIMU8+7QkNFPVNhaSFuG/Oh5utm9MC9a9wCBYv4GQS9NEML5h svPST6TEZGrtd8aNzYH7sP8wg4Uoxi1ubtWx0JuiyfDrZI9QYLXI7DR8xb7wZy9I wIBI7uTe2ORRgK+gIB/0vh1ewiswcPw8COsRnb6VpbOOgTNnA15EspE=
Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com (mail-we0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a73.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F103A1F007C for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:53:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id k14so1371441wer.39 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:53:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.108.236 with SMTP id hn12mr6096483wib.6.1359075192591; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:53:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.39.133 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:53:12 -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 18:53:12 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOiOeKUAVugVk7pKDwx+-bOiS-hbQ0hZxZaKjydniOuz=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Robert Brewer <fumanchu@aminus.org>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.74; envelope-from=nico@cryptonector.com; helo=homiemail-a73.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.450, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1TyXXz-0006le-Ch 534125237b6f876f53e493cb31e9f516
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/CAK3OfOiOeKUAVugVk7pKDwx+-bOiS-hbQ0hZxZaKjydniOuz=A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16202
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 6:44 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?

This would require significant changes to HTML and web services.
HTTP/2.0 would be a much more transparent change.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email