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

Re: multiplexing -- don't do it

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:54:49 +0200
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E62DAC7B-622E-46C3-A720-1D1F2D080942@mnot.net>
To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>

On 31/03/2012, at 1:11 PM, Mike Belshe wrote:

> For the record - nobody wants to avoid using port 80 for new protocols.  I'd love to!  There is no religious reason that we don't - its just that we know, for a fact, that we can't do it without subjecting a non-trivial number of users to hangs, data corruption, and other errors.  You might think its ok for someone else's browser to throw reliability out the window, but nobody at Microsoft, Google, or Mozilla has been willing to do thatů

Mike - 

I don't disagree on any specific point (as I think you know), but I would observe that the errors you're talking about can themselves be viewed as transient. I.e., just because they occur in experiments now, doesn't necessarily mean that they won't be fixed in the infrastructure in the future -- especially if they generate a lot of support calls, because they break a lot MORE things than they do now. 

Yes, there will be a period of pain, but I just wanted to highlight one of the potential differences between deploying a standard and a single-vendor effort.  It's true that we can't go too far here; if we specify a protocol that breaks horribly 50% of the time, it won't get traction. However, if we have a good base population and perhaps a good fallback story, we *can* change things.

Just my .02.

> As for mobile safari - I mentioned this in my talk the other day - its a bit of a conundrum.  Android's browser (not chrome) also turns on pipelining.  But I know that neither Apple nor the Android team have produced data or analyzed the success or failures of pipelining.  Mobile browsing is downright awful (due to bad content, networking errors, and other things).  It could be that mobile networks have fewer interfering proxies, or it could be that these errors are just getting blamed on other mobile network glitches.  I honestly don't know.  I'd love to see data on the matter.

I tend to agree with the point you made in the meeting -- this probably falls into the noise of other errors / discomforts in the mobile world. Mobile users have low expectations.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2012 11:55:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:57 GMT