IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Mon, 25 July 2011 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C43F21F8678 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 bQBJOzkkBygS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B983421F8658 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.14]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p6P16w6r028225 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:06:58 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1311556018; bh=xpgwc7lsKgfWirySk95DsbElaZQ=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=UiyJypoarLpng3D6K3yqF3VpJu4+Ig8RoQvjPlwx1G0rI0lpRDp5ghbf1ezOU0q90 CdzF6A29cQ31FrwmHexRQ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=hyDksnMaWw37edpnzL8Bb71nk/tASom9AT6xRqqW+mi5JAXJ2ghpsLZz9/NPhpUXh s6kwW6ZQVMWLh7EttncWA==
Received: from gxk2 (gxk2.prod.google.com [10.202.11.2]) by hpaq14.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p6P16Vd2027781 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:06:57 -0700
Received: by gxk2 with SMTP id 2so2207733gxk.36 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=3i9GCBVEyQodIh7ePW/mCiGY5S3odGMHI63/zboROtE=; b=gfKBMu+zXLYKAsueciumOnJaFENDBuwJyPczxSfOTsHhbU0TBwD3aVxlH7zqKCUvnG w+ItynwCXaXESq0H9mhg==
Received: by 10.150.116.12 with SMTP id o12mr3854987ybc.2.1311556017123; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.49.7 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110725004658.A3AE71221C03@drugs.dv.isc.org>
References: <CALiegf=pYzybvc7WB2QfPg6FKrhLxgzHuP-DpuuMfZYJV6Z7FQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP992=FJymFPKcPVWrF-LkcEtNUz=Kt9L_ex+kLtjiGjL1T46w@mail.gmail.com> <4E28A51F.4020704@callenish.com> <CALiegf=4K2oWfmZjGMD7J_jyaDtS3i+Mu7R0Wh75Rr+MrQCjtw@mail.gmail.com> <20110722054345.GE18126@1wt.eu> <9031.1311500145.687172@puncture> <20110724105223.GL22405@1wt.eu> <CALiegfkTVg2=k4d8rxmpqXmaRUihRmhtgfF4QRUTAKic7gBk5w@mail.gmail.com> <20110724121147.GR22405@1wt.eu> <CALiegf=GDDKdXOXgz3oognh6=qRDKFUSrRfLOtOoUucAxr4p3w@mail.gmail.com> <20110724183343.GY22405@1wt.eu> <20110725004658.A3AE71221C03@drugs.dv.isc.org>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:06:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CABLsOLD-KM6DnR8HvfGH8N1M=1bZ4z8zus0YDczaXSfocBQ+Bw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd32b9480f27904a8da6ec3"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:05:19 -0700
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 01:07:00 -0000

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

> Adding a SRV lookup should add 0ms if it isn't there as you should be
> making A, AAAA and SRV lookups in parallel.  Non-existance is as
> cachable as existance is.
>

But you have to wait until the SRV returns even if the A/AAAA response comes
back first, so there is a non-zero cost even with an optimal implementation.
 I am not arguing whether the cost is worth the benefits, only that there is
a cost in any case.

-- 
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email