W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: The List (of application-layer desired features)

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 01:30:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNc4BroJf_CvuPuMU0GFYtp-v-m-xz+H2KLAOr2hFZK9Kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, tsvwg@ietf.org
The most interesting part of this list, for me, was that I was nearly 100%
sure that every item on this list had been discussed and designed by folks
participating in TSVWG.
The part that I'm unsure that people realized is the extent of the hunger
to have something deployed "yesterday" so that the features could be
reliably used today.

A colleague reminded me that "prioritization" means different things in the
different areas (thanks, and thanks Allison for pointing it out in your
preso!). On this note, it meant both QoS like things and hints to the
application layer.

Something which I also failed to describe well was that "cheap"/"fast"
channel/connection setup to CPU/mem, yes, but perhaps more importantly to
the importance of minimizing latency in connection/channel setup,
especially while including features like security.
-=R


On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually sending to the right list for TSVWG...
>
> -=R
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For those of you who missed it, at the HTTPBis/TSVG joint session, a
>> question about what applications want from the transport (I really want to
>> put quotes around that) came up.
>>
>> Here is a rendition of what was on the note that I jotted down in
>> response to this question, and which I passed to people at the mic.
>>
>> (Apps-folks want the following) Deployed in 1996:
>> -----------------------------------------
>> - Prioritization
>> - Partial Reliability
>> - "Shared" congestion between multiple streams
>> - Security
>> - No HOL blocking on stream X when loss on stream Y
>> - Cheap/Fast  channel/connection setup
>> - Wide, "safe" deployment
>> - Competes with TCP/HTTP/1.1 (performance-wise)
>> - Multipath/roaming robustness, i.e. the "driveway" problem
>>
>>
>> I'll reiterate that by far the most important feature is "is deployed".
>> Nothing else matters until that is true, at least at the
>> application-layer.
>> -=R
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 08:31:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:14 UTC