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

Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP

From: Jacob Champion <champion.p@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:44:04 -0800
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <35077770-8042-9a5c-9d3f-af997710cb10@gmail.com>
On 12/13/2016 08:22 AM, Patrick McManus wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
> <mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>> wrote:
>     If no, why is it in H2? If yes, why is it a problem for HTTP, but
>     not for WS?
>
> It could be a problem for ws - but the advocates for the work have not
> embraced that argument. Differences in workloads might be the
> differentiator. dunno. that's why I started the thread :)

It might be hard(er) to find people who feel like they *need* mux... my 
guess is that since the one-connection-per-subprotocol rule is absolute 
for WS/1, anyone who wants to scale up to large numbers of clients will 
have already consolidated their application concerns into a single 
subprotocol to avoid connection overhead.

Mux would open up new architectures -- now, if you need to use four 
separate subprotocols, you can just use them; you don't need to merge 
them and reinvent the wheel out of fear of exhausting TCP slots. 
(Obviously mux isn't a magic bullet for performance, as evidenced by the 
priority/weighting stuff, but I think it would change things up 
significantly.)

--Jacob
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2016 17:44:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 December 2016 17:44:41 UTC