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

Re: HTTP2 Expression of Interest : Squid

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:55:14 +0200
To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, tom <zs68j2ee@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120716055514.GC22790@1wt.eu>
Hi Mike,

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 04:26:13PM -0700, Mike Belshe wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Roberto,
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:05:31AM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote:
> > > Note that, if ever one will wish to implement server push or anything
> > > similar, there are ordering requirements that must be placed on at least
> > > the content delivery of the requested resource and its associated
> > metadata.
> >
> > Doug's EOI made me think again about server push. You may remember, we
> > discussed the subject for countless hours when we met, with the problem
> > basically being that when a client fetches a page, it also wants the
> > objects in that page. Doug seems to need server push for instant delivery
> > to the client of fresh new contents, which is different. And if we look
> > at how the web is currently changing, we have more and more application
> > code running on the browser (sometimes a smartphone) which parses contents
> > delivered by the server. I suspect that once we have MUX in WebSocket, this
> > new model will become even more prevalent.
> >
> 
> Websockets is at the wrong layer and does not do content delivery - e.g. a
> websocket response will never ever land you in the client's cache.

Indeed, this is a good point. I was mostly thinking about dynamic contents
in fact.

> > All this to say that maybe in the near future, the real need for server
> > push will be for raw data processed by the application and not that much
> > about page objects. I may be wrong, but this is probably something to
> > think about, since in the end it will tell us whether we have to break
> > the request/response model or not, which has a huge impact on content
> > filtering BTW.
> >
> 
> Server push doesn't break the request response model.  You issue a request,
> you get a response.  You can't get responses without requests.

OK but some data may end up in the client's cache without having been
requested by him. I don't think it has a high technical impact, but it
may rather be a legal one in some cases. In fact it's a delicate question.

> As for impact on content filtering, I think you're quite mistaken.  Using
> server push allows the content to look like content and makes it much
> *easier* to do filtering.  If we do as you proposed above (and move it to
> websockets) then it becomes opaque data and much harder to apply common
> filtering rules.

Note that I'm not advocating the use of WS to retrieve objects, I was just
observing that more and more contents are delivered as data to applications,
so I'm not saying that I'd prefer to filter them in one form or another.
Concerning filtering, I think that what embarrasses me a bit with server
push is the difficulty of applying URL-based filtering. But maybe this is
just a problems which needs to be carefully addressed so that it is not a
problem at all.

Regards,
Willy
Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 05:55:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 July 2012 05:56:01 GMT