W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1994

HTTP: T-T-T-Talking about MIME Generation

From: Marc Salomon <marc@library.ucsf.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 14:52:35 -0800
Message-Id: <199412152252.AA10276@library.ucsf.edu >
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com

HTTP: T-T-T-Talking about MIME Generation

1.	Much has been mentioned about the cumulative terror of the round trip time 
(RTT) penalty paid for many small HTTP requests, each of which requires its own 
TCP connection (and resultant RTTs) required to fetch and render an HTML 
document and its component objects.  Compounding the problem, some anti-social 
network clients initiate multiple concurrent TCP connections in an attempt to 
create the illusion of a speed up by distracting from boredom by rendering all 
objects as they arrive simultaneously.  Should the user choose to abort a 
document load conducted in this way, it aborts all in-progress TCP connections 
as well.  The network is then then saddled with what others have observed as
the substantial overhead of all the silent screams of those aborted connections.  
2.  Packing all or part of an HTML document and its components into a multipart 
MIME message in response to an HTTP GET would increase the number of bytes sent 
along a single TCP socket connection.  This will avoid some of the network 
congestion observed with the multiple and/or simultaneous low content-length 
TCP sessions when clients build the document.  While valuable work is underway 
to provide binary-encoded and multiplexed transport-level solutions to the 
multiple connect problem [ Spero, Raggett, HTTP-ng ], We need to look 
concurrently at exploiting the transport encoding scheme upon which HTTP 
theoretically rests to address this problem--MIME.  I do not believe that this 
approach conflicts with any of the work on HTTP-ng, and could envision a case 
where they could be used together transfer multiple HTML documents and their 
components quite rapidly.  Most of all, we need to provide many options 
allowing for maximum tuning and customization on all sides.

3.	Operating under the assumption that at this time in the life cycle of the
web, most HTML documents contain components that reside on the same server as 
the document itself, why not trade the multiple network connections from the 
client to the same server for some up-front packaging by the server.  Instead 
of a server having to clone itself into as many instances as sub-objects it 
serves, it could perform a rudimentary (cached) parsing of the document
to determine the appropriate sub-objects that it served as well, package 
them up into MIME body parts sent along with the HTML document.  Accesses by 
the server on which the components reside usually requires merely a simple 
secondary storage access measured in terms of milliseconds which in the vast 
majority of cases is significantly less than that of a TCP RTT which can run 
into perceptable fractions of whole seconds.  As an option, the server could 
resolve any object references resident on other servers (caching the results 
in shared memory), and include them in the multipart data stream.  What follows
is a draft protocol for encoding an HTML document and its components in
multupart MIME.

4.	The client would need to include multipart/mixed*  in its Accept: headers 
if it chose to accept this encoding.  A terminal-based browser such as lynx 
or LineMode would not send this in its Accept: headers and could thus opt out.
If a browser had the flushed the HTML document from its cache but had not 
flushed some of its inline images you would not want to include this header 
unless you wanted the larger, complete data stream.  The server builds a 
multipart/mixed* message consisting of the HTML document and whatever 
components were resolved.  The server could be configured either to resolve 
and cache or leave to the client any components that resided elsewhere.  

* multipart/mixed might be better as application/http or multipart/http.
I defer to the MIME dieties for a ruling.

6. Interoperating efficiently with client cache management brings up some
interesting issues.  The ability to check the HTML document's requirements
against the client-side cache before issuing a precisely tailored HTTP MGET 
request (which would be returned as multipart/mixed*).

6. The HTML document is included as a body part of Content-Type:  text/html.
The outermost MIME headers (or the header associated with multipart/mixed*) 
contain a Message-ID: field in the form:

Message-ID:  <URI>

Each component object is identified by a Content-ID: field 

that is in the form:

Content-ID: <URI>

In this manner, each body part can be unpacked by the client, inserted into
its cache data structure, any missing body parts could be acquired, and the
multipart images would be pulled out of the cache struture to render.  The
master HTML document can be recognized as main body part by the URI common
to both the Message-ID: field and that of the Content-ID: field in one of the 
Content-Type: text/html body parts.

7.	An instance of the proposed MIME encoding scheme for HTTP follows.  This 
is currently in the process of a feasibility study in METHADONE (Mime Encoding 
THreAded Daemon Optimized for Network Efficiency), a caching, lightweight
threaded, MIME multipart encoding HTTP server for solaris 2.x (exploiting the 
rich base functionality of NCSA's httpd) currently under beta development at 
the UCSF Library and Center for Knowedge Management.

Client makes HTTP connection to host.domain:
___
GET /http_mime.html HTTP/1.0
...
Language: en
Accept:  multipart/mixed, application/http
...
___
Server responds:
___
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Title: A Proposed MIME Encoding of an HTML Document and its Components 
Date: Thursday, 15-Dec-94 03:19:05 GMT
Server: METHADONE 0.1
Cost: free!
Content-Language: en
Allowed: GET HEAD PUT
Allowed: GET HEAD 
Date: Thu Dec 15 19:48:54 PST 1994
Last-Modified: Wed Dec  7 14:54:48 1994
MIME-version: 1.0
Message-ID: <http://host.domain/http_mime.html>
Version: beta
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
				boundary=__http__boundary__



--__http__boundary__

Content-type: text/html
Content-Language: en
Content-ID: <http://host.domain/path/http_mime.html>
Content-Length:  193

<HTML>
<HEAD><TITLE>A Compound HTML Document</TITLE></HEAD>
<BODY>
<H1>Compound HTML Document</H1>
<IMG SRC="http://host.domain/path/image.gif">
...
<INC SRC="http://host.domain/path/frag.html">
...
<IMG SRC="http://host.domain/path/image.xbm">
...
</BODY></HTML>

--__http__boundary__

Content-Type: image/gif
Content-ID: <http://host.domain/image.gif>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 1234

<1234 bytes of GIF>

--__http__boundary__

Content-Type: text/html
Content-ID: <http://host.domain/path/frag.html>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:  799

<HR>
<UL>
<LI>Client issues GET on HTML document.
<LI>Server scans HTML document for any component objects (SRC=%URI;) upon 
reciept of GET.
<LI>In most cases, the components are resident on the same server, so any
GET's are to secondary storage instead of the network.  
<LI>The server can perform GET on components resident elsewhere and cache or
defer that to the client.
<LI>The server packs up the document with its components into a multipart MIME
message.
<LI>The data can be sent over an 8-bit HTTP socket, no content-transfer-encoding required.
<LI>Content-ID: MIME Header contains URL of component.  
<LI>Client parses multipart MIME message.
<LI>Client adds components to image cache.
<LI>Client performs GET on remaining images if not resolved by server.
<LI>Client renders HTML.
</UL>
<HR>

--__http__boundary__
 
Content-Type: image/xbm
Content-ID: <http://host.domain/path/image.xbm>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 2345

<2345 bytes of XBM>

--__http__boundary__

--__http__boundary__


Two consecutive boundary strings indicate an EOF.

8.  I plan to bring this up on the sgml-internet list as well, for a broader,
more general perspective.

-marc
--/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
// Marc Salomon    Software Engineer             e-mail: marc@ckm.ucsf.edu  // 
\\ Innovative Software Systems Group                                        \\
// Center for Knowledge Management               phone :  415.476.9541      //
\\ The University of California, San Fransisco                              \\
// 530 Parnassus SF, CA 94143-0840               fax:    415.476.4653       //
 \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Received on Thursday, 15 December 1994 14:54:49 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:09 EDT