W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 10:48:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqk7W_oNWUismMb-ZuhvdboZNDQ0YV2BLsbka-FGC-7oA@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi All.

The continued websockets discussion is interesting to me - its clear the
number of interested parties is small but significant (e.g. almost nobody
in the room in Seoul had read the presented draft, but a diverse number of
participants are making related technical contributions on the list.). The
general advice remains in effect - 6455 wasn't done in HTTPbis so its best
to seek another venue (a new wg, or perhaps dispatch help) for an update -
but when it comes to its interaction with HTTP that's on topic for this WG
and there probably is some expertise. So I don't mind the conversation
continuing as long as a parallel effort to find a home for actually
adopting the work is made.

I would like to use this thread to better understand, for my own
edification, what the problem being addressed here is and how big of a
problem it is in practice. Its not controversial to say that 6455 has
warts, and given the toolbox we have now it would be done differently - but
what in terms of operations would be improved by an update to a h2 world?
Would that be a different set of answers for a quic world?

Here's what I think I'm hearing, but there are so many messages that are
done in the weeds of the solution space I don't want to lose track of the
problems being solved - I think this list might help in any chartering
discussion:

* in a practical sense there is no mux and when you have mux you need
priority and flow control. h2 solves this.
* operational overhead of maintaining/admin h1 just to boostrap to
websockets.
* latency of a new h1 connection just to bootstrap to websockets
* operational overhead of separate conns for http and ws

is there more? some data on this stuff would be good. Is this really mostly
about mux?

I can see where the introduction of quic makes this gap even bigger.. with
its lower latency and potential to deploy more modern transport features.
It would be great to be more crisp on this - I have read
https://github.com/bidiweb/bidiweb-semantics/blob/master/SurveyOfProtocolGaps.md
and its still not clear to me what the driving concern is.

-Patrick
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2016 15:48:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 1 December 2016 15:48:53 UTC