Re: [hybi] WebSocket handshake (HTTP and SSO)

Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us> Sat, 04 September 2010 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <b@b3k.us>
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 EF6C83A67DF for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Sep 2010 11:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.234
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.743, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 HlvuE7H69OGb for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Sep 2010 11:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30AC3A67AC for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Sep 2010 11:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so3510958wwj.13 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 11:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.188.132 with SMTP id a4mr2031239wen.61.1283623570359; Sat, 04 Sep 2010 11:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.3.129 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Sep 2010 11:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim_KL_=swvKkwsp6nf_mgPymEhyVSnpfQzmhFEE@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinxTLuDEiS=XuyVHG1W+aizKHWk2Z4=LLqEHvC4@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik5uJ4wxUV-gvRmAMBe=JjOa-2yaA7zpf+hznS_@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=pD1tXjL4QV5p0Jf2WmSiGJ_7aVOthNnW8WB3u@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim_KL_=swvKkwsp6nf_mgPymEhyVSnpfQzmhFEE@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us>
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 11:05:50 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimRVK6VuJHajU_YxUg7MxEmxA-xLDG3pkOeqCxR@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] WebSocket handshake (HTTP and SSO)
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: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 18:05:43 -0000

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 5:31 AM, John Tamplin <jat@google.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Benjamin Black <b@b3k.us> wrote:
>>
>> I actually removed a sentence saying approximately "I don't see how
>> this matters to anyone but Google", but thought it too snarky.  Next
>> time I'll know!
>
> Perhaps it should matter to more people -- experience has shown that usage
> and user happiness goes up when latency goes down.  Many tools exist solely
> to help developers make their websites faster (Google only provides a few of
> these), and much of the suggestions center around reducing startup latency.

That experience, and those tools, are based on page load times:
short-lived connections and request reply.  If you can direct me to
published data from Google (or any other major operator) regarding the
influence on user behavior of connection setup latency for long-lived
connections, I should very much like to see it (and I expect it would
be of interest to many others).

All that being said, I apologize for entering the debate on latency as
it is not relevant in this context.  The root of the problem is the WG
charter, and I will put that in another email.


b