Re: [hybi] Interface for Large Frames

Philipp Serafin <phil127@gmail.com> Thu, 23 June 2011 11:25 UTC

Return-Path: <phil127@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65D911E811F for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 04:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 xyc4d8qlJXsg for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 04:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E53311E807F for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 04:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so1373420fxm.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 04:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hg5qrGXHF+jAWGC464OWcUMlhUXi/4i74drF21O/zjM=; b=BCprB6jy0WUJ9Dbuq8DvnpT7+Pjd9uuXAelump2jmLUk+AMsFNZlSV2zScrRkKVDeM Vtlswc8KEFD7F4FwKjtHmjvTbQJBhgde7z+R+U1+mB2bao3v2HyiVLpGOBpZQ6DKAECS rgTKZ4Mdk9xcXnicbmF05aB4z7ai1uzUJymfg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=dbkUQUFFx9k/UiHODEyBRmcEt33ZsRrymxUGxvVo3z2WQsPOGL/d5tSmM0quzyM1qE IcKgCiKgozobCKXxMWO6Cb1wvY6iIPkP+EFVaz/yiB9ZO6q0WHQ9qh9+fYhG3tYEAHwv OD9M7KqpwkFOi7xXspOdSMphOu2wwrmVSSQEs=
Received: by 10.223.6.28 with SMTP id 28mr2552402fax.41.1308828335621; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 04:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [212.201.74.125] (pptp-212-201-74-125.pptp.stw-bonn.de [212.201.74.125]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h28sm923764faj.5.2011.06.23.04.25.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 23 Jun 2011 04:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E03229F.9070409@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:25:19 +0200
From: Philipp Serafin <phil127@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hybi@ietf.org
References: <20110622145847.ef1fc80126c74c6c202a919c41c7bb0b.c4cc844e80.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> <4E026A1C.2030603@warmcat.com> <1308827929.11268.63.camel@tot.local>
In-Reply-To: <1308827929.11268.63.camel@tot.local>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [hybi] Interface for Large Frames
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:25:37 -0000

>> Requiring maximum frame size buffers per connection may also present 
>> scaling problems.
> At the end, someone will buffer, or the websocket engine or the
> application level. I think a checked websocket implementation will
> buffer better than an application on top of it so, the scaling problem,
> if present, will affect both methods...

Hasn't XMLHTTPRequest basically the same problem?
The current JS API for XHR makes it necessary for a browser to buffer
the complete response before passing it on to the JS layer. There also
don't seem to be any clear restrictions on the maximum size of a
resource fetched via XHR.
Maybe it could be useful to see how current browsers handle the edge
case of very large XHR responses?

Regards