IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Experiment comparing Upgrade and CONNECT handshakes

Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> Wed, 01 December 2010 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7B928C0EB for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:55:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.042
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.557, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4P4f2GS10nBy for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:55:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F603A6D0E for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:55:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyk34 with SMTP id 34so2934611qyk.10 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:57:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=60HtUVZExbyuoJIb6AgZJ3PsZrGnPTF7nbqJq71/Cq8=; b=pCCVO14U4ZFgbRdavOJTTMufGqAf905QoHyXHJQr1ralpgSKGHxvIuBO8VHwbcqzHs SdFm6UzgAISZ86q4VMNqWioIY+NgDdapylBxC0+YL+67nZAVeJO3expboI6TQWd4tISm lIx8RnmwMTAmAKH630Yyl16to2LtUFZX+KmfE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=CipbquJIXVJdvrM2xWuoUoFZcqp66vRxwMhsM/H/velhImat+3qzpIqyUwfs4Kk4HW +ykceWHNu339LeoprPOGK1yYQlBL5Njn2xe3a18YeLjcpeO1C/ivM37V0T47YB0XElei JxlVPIEmhrSrHmuemBfqk42nJBAooV3dxl8nE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.20.5 with SMTP id d5mr8197932qab.187.1291233429519; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:57:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.189.136 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:57:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimtjYUOidZcxkSEtaUniJC6m8ujzFa69DMQVhZH@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik0wR-Oag5YJJDmdiSy67WW6TMaHmqWEo4o5kGW@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimwEtKrJm5KxTYZ4wrtONBYDTGjE5LF7__AHBEU@mail.gmail.com> <20101201183540.GF19021@1wt.eu> <AANLkTi=r-is4ZqJc6itsaBkyrmW746xXj8OV78M_Qbi3@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimtjYUOidZcxkSEtaUniJC6m8ujzFa69DMQVhZH@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:57:09 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTikg51CZim1CE0MB0mv_ppxoUZysr=sLwU6n432C@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Experiment comparing Upgrade and CONNECT handshakes
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:55:57 -0000

The Hello frame exchange can be initiated by the client.

client to server
  HTTP handshake
  HELLO

server to client
  HTTP handshake
  HELLO

In most cased this is done in 1 round trip. Some current
intermediaries may withhold the client HELLO until server HTTP
handshake is received. That's all right, it's a minor performance that
will disappear in long term.

The advantage of using WS frame to test the connection is also
short-term. In the long run, that perspective becomes moot.

It is more useful to move majority of handshake data into WS frames,
keeping HTTP handshake short and simple, thereby reducing WS's
dependency on HTTP syntax. We have more design freedom if we are not
subject to HTTP baggage.

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> wrote:
> On 1 December 2010 19:43, John Tamplin <jat@google.com> wrote:
>> AFAIK, the Hello frames do not appear in any draft and only in Greg's
>> proposal.  Personally, I am not sure what exactly they buy us and I
>> don't know if we want to pay the extra round trip for them.
>
> As proposed, the Hello frames do not cost an extra round trip.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email