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

Re: Proposal to measure end-user latency

From: Sébastien BARNOUD <sebastien.barnoud@prologism.fr>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 14:46:29 +0200
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE4CF47F.F603%sebastien.barnoud@prologism.fr>
My proposal wasn't to have an interaction between the application layer
and the protocol. So, I also agree.

My proposal is to have an optional measurement at the protocol level
itself. Uses cases could be for protocols over HTTP, like SOAP to have
automatically a minimal set of measurements without extra coding at
application layer.
Of course, it will be available for a HTML application that doesn't
implement any measurement at the application layer which, although it is
regrettable, is often the case.

However, it is true that a protocol is not there to overcome all the
misery of the world.


Le 04/09/13 07:00, « Willy Tarreau » <w@1wt.eu> a écrit :

>On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 03:56:49PM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote:
>> I'd imagine that you'd want to re-use the same timing information that
>>is
>> collectable within the javascript, and likely in the same format (that
>>just
>> makes sense from an engineering perspective).
>> That format and when each of the timestamps is collected is currently
>> defined in the W3C.
>> 
>> I'd just ask them to trigger the collection of that data collection upon
>> the condition stated in the header.
>> The interaction with HTTP would just be to add that header to the IANA
>> registry, if so... doesn't seem very likely to require this WG.
>
>If it'd be done that way, I totally agree.
>
>Cheers,
>Willy
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2013 12:46:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:15 UTC