W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Re[2]: Some proxy needs

From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2012 21:44:01 +0200
Message-ID: <34f9f0e4f85753187ecbb46f42609f0d.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Le Dim 8 avril 2012 14:50, Adrien W. de Croy a écrit :

>>>3. a way to signal the web client a request is being processed (there is no
>>>way a multi-GB iso is going to pass through the anti-malware system
>>>instantaneously, and users will press retry if the download bar does not
>>> move
>>>after a few seconds)

>>That sounds like serious scope-creep to me.

Unfortunately a single user that pressed refresh half a dozen times because
he's not seeing progress on its multi-GB file can consume as much in a few
minutes as a normal user would over weeks.

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-decroy-http-progress-04
>
> We actually deployed a similar (evolved version) to this in WinGate 7.
> If you install the AV plugin (free trials available for both), download
> a big file and throw it a progress header.  We patched Chromium source
> to get the client working.  It actually works really well.  Certainly
> stops human timeouts.
>
> We didn't test it via a bunch of other proxies though.
>
> I've an outstanding task to write up the modified protocol (contrary to
> that I-D it uses 103, name=value pairs, and only sends deltas).

Could you clean it up and get it included in HTTP/2 ? That's the only way to
get it implemented by browsers and proxies.


Thanks!

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2012 19:44:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:59 GMT