Re: Proposal to measure end-user latency

I love the idea of metrics.  I think the only thing I love more is
simplicity.

I think the choices for measuring latency out-of-band from the protocol
itself are numerous - so this ends up just being more stuff.

The debate about what-to-measure, how-to-measure, etc would be very
lengthy.

Mike



On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> I suppose the question here then is how much better these (client-side)
> measurements are as compared to what the server can observe and generate on
> its own, and what attack vectors this information might possibly
> allow/enhance.
> On Sep 4, 2013 5:46 AM, "Sébastien BARNOUD" <
> sebastien.barnoud@prologism.fr> wrote:
>
>> My proposal wasn't to have an interaction between the application layer
>> and the protocol. So, I also agree.
>>
>> My proposal is to have an optional measurement at the protocol level
>> itself. Uses cases could be for protocols over HTTP, like SOAP to have
>> automatically a minimal set of measurements without extra coding at
>> application layer.
>> Of course, it will be available for a HTML application that doesn't
>> implement any measurement at the application layer which, although it is
>> regrettable, is often the case.
>>
>> However, it is true that a protocol is not there to overcome all the
>> misery of the world.
>>
>>
>> Le 04/09/13 07:00, « Willy Tarreau » <w@1wt.eu> a écrit :
>>
>> >On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 03:56:49PM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote:
>> >> I'd imagine that you'd want to re-use the same timing information that
>> >>is
>> >> collectable within the javascript, and likely in the same format (that
>> >>just
>> >> makes sense from an engineering perspective).
>> >> That format and when each of the timestamps is collected is currently
>> >> defined in the W3C.
>> >>
>> >> I'd just ask them to trigger the collection of that data collection
>> upon
>> >> the condition stated in the header.
>> >> The interaction with HTTP would just be to add that header to the IANA
>> >> registry, if so... doesn't seem very likely to require this WG.
>> >
>> >If it'd be done that way, I totally agree.
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >Willy
>> >
>>
>>
>>