Concepts to improve Http2.0

Wesley Oliver <wesley.olis@gmail.com> Wed, 27 July 2016 06:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 D1C9512B02E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.297
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xm9ZTzcRxDX6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2219412B02F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bSICb-0005di-Pw for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 06:20:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 06:20:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bSICb-0005di-Pw@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wesley.olis@gmail.com>) id 1bSICV-0005cw-EG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 06:20:15 +0000
Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wesley.olis@gmail.com>) id 1bSICS-00075i-Jw for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 06:20:14 +0000
Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id f65so199096008wmi.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=+jFm7yytAeiMmFPJ7OVJo/eTSiJyAw/Qg6Jt1VhhHfU=; b=MMAAldW/s3VsrzcfA5iMNy/w7jK/UR5bzTFKw306H/z0/7bhSaJaNa5GPIaI+ovho1 ESgTSsUJlm0LFgqG0eokpLm5yzM30DjiLF25Y7RaV9cJnoE8qu5+acgTNWNTmBvtfYOw DBDMVU4AKTc/oRYqyKS9VyvBW7rV84v6+Cp0wGL1VO6YDUmwHiHX1YfH/ZuZcI/1vvVG An4nlD9JwBYVz1SvLti4T9BrciZOcS+0qosOQTIv4RqH605FGGAosrhndx6I2pjyo/wz KHa5QLrtAJ8V2lpA2cHNutHp+RU8qPw2pUfX4odxreODBXRaTV5DdhuDrTfHC7S0aEBA /80A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=+jFm7yytAeiMmFPJ7OVJo/eTSiJyAw/Qg6Jt1VhhHfU=; b=ZKr0CTswHmhSZ0u0MpqyW8WmchLJRHOnJEwXhrf64A6XhZ0RMyW1o50zMfd9yUA/ng J9/kae23VkNV+pFlbAD1tERxm9z9Tt6rY4MyVY/Kb7jY2E8BgrKc+55Qb++/aT6z6qxh wL1MnnzaGrklXxO4dYJolu2Hr99ZIs1dolrcqbWbajBbv5+zNa8dIaiO3vNk0QW/PBTq tLDfnODPMqfuhBaMuEtNaH1meAU3Nqm15P1d6PSquIhu6mqyvPOhzYV8lhHq7nKfqqGB 2qX54c+aTZqVGPS+nMxhJHCsvG4Hh/CumNYfFlh6MU79YMo/sdRhWOl5KzAKDKJ4GTJp opQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousmTwBUe3rc6pJCnAhaoBrhSHzTaK0sil0T3jT3wD+TaUDsiUAsXDwug9mvCY5lLlJHQC8oiTY28+Ddrw==
X-Received: by 10.194.222.233 with SMTP id qp9mr28324824wjc.175.1469600385525; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.238.41 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wesley Oliver <wesley.olis@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 08:19:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CACvHZ2bkgJcySp7gBVNZ10hbUmKyu0ZQiT_UunXB0yMYre795Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3ad8cf0ecd305389800af"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.54; envelope-from=wesley.olis@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm0-f54.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: 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, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bSICS-00075i-Jw cfdb671ebdfb242bb8cf54d0816eeb75
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Concepts to improve Http2.0
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CACvHZ2bkgJcySp7gBVNZ10hbUmKyu0ZQiT_UunXB0yMYre795Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32045
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>

Hi,

I am not new to the concept of the IETF, however, I have yet to make an
offical submission.

I would like to put forth a concept that can further improve the
performance of http 2.0.
I have a couple of other concepts as well regarding content expiry headers
which would affect http 1.1.
Additionally I would also like to look into concepts to prevent unnecessary
push requests for content that is already cached by the browser. Since
mobile bandwidth constraints, would be obviously benefit from not push
content that is already cached.

Full document on the concept can be found  at the link below and first
abstract can be found to follow this email.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xGY4GycBMt4zyCoJpzoIZrlLOs1bwaRVBfPE9aXdbyE/edit?usp=sharing

If you could please advise as to the path to follow.


Kind Regards,

Wesley Oliver
Http Response Stream - Optimistic approach for performance improvement and
Snowball effect of Response Body Programming paradigm shift of benefits

Abstract

Traditionally in http 1.1 one is required to buffer an http response on the
server side. If a change to the headers was to be made during the response
somewhere during the page generation code, because headers are not allowed
to be changed after the message-body has been transmitted. Changing these
semantics by removing this constraint in http 2.0 will open the door to an
http response programming paradigm shift in possibilities. Benefits,
improved and optimal bandwidth utilization, reduce overall page render
resource latency and potentially an increase in server page requests that
can be processed.
Concept:

Allow multiple response to be sent over the wire for the same request,
whereby the last response that has been transmitted over the wire, will
form the official response that will be permanently rendered in the client
browser.

This is an optimistic approach, when the response will not change,
therefore eliminating the need to buffer the response. As soon as network
buffer has a full packet or has been forced flushed it can be transmitted
over the wire, reducing the latency of the response experience by the
client. Additionally it also allows for improved bandwidth utilization
after the server has received the request, as it can immediately start
sending response packets, reducing potentially wasted bandwidth during the
time in which the response is being generated and then buffered before
transmission.




-- 
-- 
Web Site that I have developed:
http://www.swimdynamics.co.za


Skype: wezley_oliver
MSN messenger: wesley.olis@gmail.com