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

Re: Re[4]: HTTP2 Expression of Interest

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:45:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNc19T72cNgXo1B=KG0KF0+9GhpTpU83+Yf7r4ZVTRmx=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Rajeev Bector <rbector@yahoo-inc.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Doug Beaver <doug@fb.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:

>
> we can already transfer many objects over a single connection with HTTP/1.1
>
> SPDY without SSL would be more speedy than with it.
>

Assuming you could deploy it successfully and reliably to everyone, which
is not a trivial matter.


>
> There may be only a couple R-Ts to get an SSL handshake, but sprinkle on a
> CRL / OCSP check and you're left eating dust.
>
> So, let's just get this straight for the record.  SSL will not improve
> latency.  It will make it worse, and for many people (on
> already-high-latency links) a LOT worse.
>

SSL transforms something which is potentially not deployable into something
which is eminently deployable.
If the thing which is now deployed is able to amortize that cost, the
result may be a net benefit.
You're right that the first-order effect of SSL is to add RTTs to the
initial handshake.
You're neglecting the second-order effects.
-=R


>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Rajeev Bector" <rbector@yahoo-inc.com>
> To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>;"Martin Thomson" <
> martin.thomson@gmail.com>;"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
> Cc: "Doug Beaver" <doug@fb.com>;"Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>;"
> ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: 18/07/2012 3:26:56 p.m.
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: HTTP2 Expression of Interest
>
>  Arguably, the cost of 3 Rts is amortized over many many objects that
> gets transferred over the session. That said, I am trying to imagine how to
> do crypto on my Arduino :-).
>
>
> From: "Adrien W. de Croy" < <adrien@qbik.com>adrien@qbik.com>
> Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" < <adrien@qbik.com>adrien@qbik.com>
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 20:20:09 -0700
> To: Martin Thomson < <martin.thomson@gmail.com>martin.thomson@gmail.com>,
> "Martin J. Dürst" < <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
> Cc: Doug Beaver < <doug@fb.com>doug@fb.com>, Willy Tarreau < <w@1wt.eu>
> w@1wt.eu>, " <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re[2]: HTTP2 Expression of Interest
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Martin Thomson" < <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>
> On 17 July 2012 19:35, "Martin J. Dürst" < <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
> duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>
> So why are we okay with 10-20% more processing costs for everybody, but not
> with 10-20% more bandwidth? What's different between processing costs and
> bandwidth?
>
>
>
> Personally, I thought that the first optimization was for latency,
>
> How do you optimise latency by adding 3 RTs in a SSL setup?
>
>
>
> with bandwidth as secondary and (obviously) consequential.  Trade-offs
> may have to be made.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 05:45:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 July 2012 05:45:51 GMT