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

Re: Backwards compatibility

From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:41:56 +0000
To: "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com>, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: "<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <em4b4851cf-7160-467f-a679-b66aa73e96d9@boist>

------ Original Message ------
From: "Mark Watson" watsonm@netflix.com
>Send the requests (yes, pipelined). If they come back without ids, 
>then they are coming back in the order they were sent. If they come 
>back with ids, then that tells you which response is which.
there could be pathological cases where some come back with IDs and 
some without.
>>The former incurs a large latency cost. The latter depends very much 
>>on how deployable you view pipelining on the overall internet. 
>It's certainly widely deployed in servers and non-transparent proxies. 
>Non-supporting non-transparent proxies are easily detected. Yes, 
>broken transparent proxies are a (small) problem, but you can also 
>detect these.
>>I am skeptical it is sufficiently deployable and we on Chromium are 
>>gathering numbers to answer this question (http://crbug.com/110794). 
>Our internal figures suggest that more than 95% of users can 
>successfully use pipelining. That's an average. On some ISPs the 
>figure is much lower.
Do you keep stats of how many of those 95% are not going through a 
proxy of any (detectable) kind?  I'd imagine the proportion (of 
directly-connected users) to be quite high.
>>Interleaving data from multiple responses requires some kind of 
>>framing, yes. Chunked transfer encoding is a kind of framing that is 
>>already supported by HTTP. Allowing chunks to be associated with 
>>different responses would be a simple change. Maybe it feels like a 
>>hack ? That was my question: why isn't a small enhancement to the 
>>existing framing sufficient ?
I think there would be interop issues.
>> Putting my question another way, what is the desired new feature 
>> that really *requires* that we break backwards compatibility with 
>> the extremely successful HTTP1.1 ?
> Multiplexing,
 See my question above
 >header compression, 
>Easily negotiated: an indicator in the first request indicates that 
>the client supports it. If that indicator survives to the server, the 
>server can start compressing response headers right away. If the 
>client receives a compressed response it can start compressing future 
>requests on that connection. It's important that this indicator be one 
>which is dropped by intermediaries that don't support compression.
>I think you mean "re-priortization". I can send requests in priority 
>order - what I can't do is change that order to response to user 
>actions. How big a deal is this, vs closing the connection and 
>re-issuing outstanding requests in the new order ?
I'd like to add
support for new additional semantics.  Such as aren't possible if 
there's a 1.1 hop in the chain, but otherwise possible.
An example is some sort of subscribed notification, where you can send 
a single request, and get any number of responses with entities, as and 
when the server feels is right to send.
Think Facebook new message notifications, or online shopping card 
transaction status.

>> …Mark
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 22:42:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:01 UTC