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

Re: Adding protocol information to Resource Timing

From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:53:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYguM+RgcAgnZXpomf=KBTh49j4dPa+Rcch9nCqHPsFAHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org>
Cc: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>, "McCall, Mike" <mmccall@akamai.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>, "Jain, Shakesh" <shjain@akamai.com>
I appreciate the back channel concern. I just wanted to understand the
statement that Resource Timing should not repeat information that the
server already knows. From the spdy-dev email:
"""
We, at Akamai, are working on using real-user monitoring (RUM) to
measure server's,
SPDY vs. HTTP, performance. With variety of protocols (http/spdy2/spdy3)
in use it is hard to figure out how many components were fetched over what
protocol in a given page and that makes it hard to understand/trust
performance measurement results without digging deep into what is on the
page.
"""

As I understand that email, one server wants to know about resources
being served by other servers. That's the only reason I asked for
clarification since I didn't see how James' response to the original
email addressed the desired use case.

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:41 PM, James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org> wrote:
> The server that serves the resource knows which protocol it used to serve
> the resource.
>
> In case this is where you're going... The thing I want to avoid is using the
> hundreds of millions of clients on the web as a back channel for relaying
> information from the resource's server back to the main document's server..
>
> James
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I'm less familiar here. Can someone clarify which server knows
>> what?
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote:
>> > I agree with James. There's the case where RUM collection is done by a
>> > third
>> > party but even there, this info could be collected outside of the
>> > resource
>> > timing API.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I can't speak for everyone, but my opinion is that Resource Timing
>> >> should
>> >> not repeat information that the server already knows. You should be
>> >> able to
>> >> record the protocol on the server side.
>> >>
>> >> James
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:09 AM, McCall, Mike <mmccall@akamai.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> After some internal discussions, a colleague recently started a
>> >>> thread[1] on the spdy-dev mailing list, asking about having an
>> >>> interface
>> >>> for developers to leverage to determine whether or not a web page
>> >>> resource
>> >>> was fetched via SPDY (or in the future, HTTP 2.0).
>> >>>
>> >>> Since the Resource Timing specification already enumerates the
>> >>> resources
>> >>> for a
>> >>> given page, it seems like it would make sense to also include which
>> >>> protocol was used to fetch a given resource.
>> >>>
>> >>> What does the group think?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> Mike
>> >>>
>> >>> 1.
>> >>>
>> >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/spdy-dev/ERaEDaTnt7w
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 10:53:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:34 UTC