- 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>
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