- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 16:16:48 +1000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
[ sending replies to apps-discuss ] Hi Willy, On 17/05/2011, at 3:34 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 02:23:29PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-http-browser-hints-00.txt > > While I have still not replied to your previous mail about the pipelining > draft, I must say that I like this new proposal a lot more than the old one. Thanks, but they're orthogonal. > I think that default values should be indicated for all values there. The defaults are the current behaviours of implementations; anything else would make this mechanism non-optional, and introduce lots of problems. > For > instance, if a site complies with this draft and delivers a browser-hints > file, it means that it's likely to comply with many of the server > requirements, so pipelining should be supported for instance. Pipelining already has to be supported, if it's a HTTP/1.1 server. As has been discussed ad nauseum, a "I support pipelining" or even a "I really support pipelining" flag doesn't do anyone any good. > Thus, we > could reasonably suggest that max-pipeline-depth is non-zero when not > specified. > > For "small-hdrs", we should explicitly indicate what Accept* header values > will be used by the server when they are not sent by the browser. It'll work just like it does when you don't send the Accept-Headers values in HTTP today. Anything else would be introducing incompatible changes to HTTP. > Concerning the no-referer, we're risking that people always ask for a > referer header to be sent because they want to see how they're indexed. > My suggestion would be that we provide the ability not to send a referer > header for requests coming from the same site (eg: fetching images from > a site's page enlarges all requests for nothing). That could probably be > combined with the new Ref header you're proposing with various options : > > - no referer from the same site > - relative referer only without query string > - relative referer only with query string > - full referer I suspect that the referer-related mechanisms are going to be refined, based on feedback I've already received. Also, see Adam Barth's related work on Origin. > I'm seeing a minor issue though : we're mixing there two distinct pieces of > information. We have infrastructure-related information (pipelining, concurrent > persistent connections, etc...) and application informationn (referer, ...). > > Some large hosting infrastructures I know will like the connection related > informations to be directly delivered from outer shared reverse proxies for all > hosted sites, while the application-specific information will be delivered from > hosted applications. Eg: one app will want the referer while another won't care, > however neither knows what to announce for pipelining or persistent conns. IME more complex deployments like this tend to develop back-end practices and tools to manage those issues. > Thus we should probably have two distinct well known files. In order to > reduce the number of requests, we could suggest that if the browser-hints > file does not contain any connection information, then the browser is > invited to get /.well-known/connection-hints too as a complement. I have a pretty strong suspicion that this will end up being too complex, but let's see what others think. > Anyway I don't think that fetching two files is an issue, considering that > the connection-specific one would be cached much longer. > > While we're at it, the same file could be used to announce the configured > keep-alive timeout so that browsers don't try to send requests over > supposedly dead connections. Possibly, but I'm not sure what that achieves, vs. the Keep-Alive header that's already implemented. Some servers also want this to be dynamic. See also Martin Thompson et al's work on timeouts. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 06:17:20 UTC