W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [Resource Timing] Why does connectEnd exclude the SSL Handshake?

From: Andy Davies <dajdavies@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:48:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CABbusA+LXgD=BrxAT3pzOXzGr8Jvrd2v4XUHZ3Z3Pt8tvhAf8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com>
Cc: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>, Nic Jansma <nic@nicj.net>, "Austin,Daniel" <daaustin@paypal-inc.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Cool thanks for that detail


On 10 April 2013 21:27, James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com> wrote:

> Chrome includes it. We match the Navigation Timing spec.
>
> James
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Andy Davies <dajdavies@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think this might have been the discussion that led to Nav TIming
>> changing -
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2010Nov/0046.html I
>> also found something Karen Andersen wrote last nigh about it but the
>> archive search doesn't find it now :-/
>>
>> Jatinder, James: On the Resource Timing front would you able to clarify
>> whether IE and Chrome include the SSL handshake or not?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> On 10 April 2013 17:47, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Iíve updated the Resource Timing connectEnd definition to be more
>>> consistent with the Navigation Timing connectEnd definition,
>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/ResourceTiming/Overview.html#dom-performanceresourcetiming-connectend.
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Thanks,****
>>>
>>> Jatinder****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From:* Arvind Jain [mailto:arvind@google.com]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:15 AM
>>> *To:* Nic Jansma
>>> *Cc:* Austin,Daniel; James Simonsen; Andy Davies; public-web-perf@w3.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Resource Timing] Why does connectEnd exclude the SSL
>>> Handshake?****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Yes let's fix it. I suspect it's just an oversight - we changed the text
>>> in Navigation Timing as a result of this thread:****
>>>
>>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2010Nov/0046.html**
>>> **
>>>
>>> and we probably forgot to make the change in Resource Timing
>>> specification.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Nic Jansma <nic@nicj.net> wrote:****
>>>
>>>  NavigationTiming and ResourceTiming differ in how connectEnd is
>>> defined:
>>>
>>> NavigationTiming (
>>> http://www.w3c-test.org/webperf/specs/NavigationTiming/):****
>>>
>>> connectEnd<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/NavigationTiming/Overview.html#dom-performancetiming-connectend>
>>> *must include *the time interval to establish the transport connection
>>> as well as other time interval such as SSL handshake and SOCKS
>>> authentication. ****
>>>
>>> ResourceTiming (http://www.w3c-test.org/webperf/specs/ResourceTiming/):*
>>> ***
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> connectEnd<http://www.w3.org/TR/resource-timing/#dom-performanceresourcetiming-connectend>must include the time interval to establish the transport connection.
>>> *It must not include other *time interval such as SSL handshake and
>>> SOCKS authentication.****
>>>
>>>  IMO the NT spec has the better definition, as
>>> secureConnectionEnd==connectEnd in this case (which is why
>>> secureConnectionEnd was omitted from both of the specs).  Also, the 'TCP'
>>> phase in the images in both NT and RT specs shows connectEnd including
>>> SSL/SOCKS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> - Nic****
>>>
>>> http://nicj.net/****
>>>
>>> @NicJ****
>>>
>>>  On 4/10/2013 10:45 AM, Austin,Daniel wrote:****
>>>
>>>  There is no such animal as 'SecureConnectionEnd', in either nav or res
>>> timing. It's a significant flaw in the model. Also missing are details
>>> about the underlying OCSP calls. This significantly reduces the utility of
>>> the spec, IMHO.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> R,****
>>>
>>> D-
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone****
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 10, 2013, at 3:56 AM, "James Simonsen" <simonjam@google.com>
>>> wrote:****
>>>
>>>  I can only guess it's because that's covered by sslConnectStart/End.
>>> But in the case of browsers that don't provide that, it seems like they
>>> should fall back to including it connectStart/End. Anyone else have an
>>> opinion? ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> James****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Andy Davies <dajdavies@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:****
>>>
>>>  I understand why the spec states that connectEnd excludes SOCKS
>>> authentication etc., but don't quite understand why it excludes the SSL
>>> Handshake****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> "connectEnd must include the time interval to establish the transport
>>> connection. It must not include other time interval such as SSL handshake
>>> and SOCKS authentication."****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> I've had a hunt back through the archives but I couldn't find any
>>> reference as to why.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Is anyone able to explain?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Andy****
>>>
>>>  ** **
>>>
>>>  ** **
>>>
>>>  ** **
>>>
>>
>>
>


image001.png
(image/png attachment: image001.png)

Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 14:49:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:35 UTC