- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:56:59 +0200
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Sébastien BARNOUD <sebastien.barnoud@prologism.fr>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Roberto, On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:49:22PM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote: > I've also wanted this-- this would allow servers to perform automatic > testing/analysis without requiring content writers to add code. This is > desirable for doing things like changing the order/frequency of server > push, etc. > This would be something in addition to what is available at the application > layer. > In particular, a server could add a header indicating that it would like to > see the WebTiming results for the page POSTed to a particular URI after > some condition (e.g. X seconds, X resource loaded, etc) had been met. > > Despite the fact that I believe this is truly useful, I believe also that > this is probably not the right place to standardize such a thing-- I > believe the W3C is. It depends if it's done at the protocol level or higher in fact. For example TCP uses timestamps for exactly the same reason and they're conveyed inside the protocol itself. I think it could be the W3C as you suggest if we find that it's too application-oriented to be related in any way with the protocol. Eg. if the protocol as no reason to know about this of course I'd agree. But if the protocol leaves a room for a timestamp or whatever, then it makes sense to have it here. The role of intermediaries would also have to be discussed. Best regards, Willy
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2013 20:57:24 UTC