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

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Sun, 24 July 2011 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 7874221F86DC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 16:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.073
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
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 BO8FoDXSjOGy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 16:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A84E621F86C3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 16:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 76430 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2011 00:08:50 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 25 Jul 2011 00:08:50 -0000
Message-ID: <4E2CAF4C.6010504@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:48:28 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
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>
In-Reply-To: <20110724183343.GY22405@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:49:44 -0000

Willy Tarreau wrote:

>> Ok, but I don't consider a xtra DNS query to be so hard.
> 
> I had to perform sites analysis for a customer a few months ago. Many
> web pages nowadays have between 100 and 200 objects to fetch, spread
> over up to 25-30 host names.

How long does it take to fetch all the contents of 100 or 200 objects?

> If you take even only 100ms for each of
> them, you're at 3 additional seconds to display the page. Granted those
> requests are not WS and only HTTP, but as I said, SRV for WS won't work
> before it works with HTTP, at least due to proxies.

It's merely additional 100ms.

							Masataka Ohta