- From: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 22:24:57 +0000
- To: HTTPWG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "ilya@igvita.com" <ilya@igvita.com>
Hi! A few minor questions and comments that came to my mind when reading draft-grigorik-http-client-hints: 1. Downlink hint relation to Netinfo I assume the Downlink information will change similarly to how the NetInfo API fires event on “network” change? Also, how will the UA handle handovers by the RAN (Radio Access network) between micro and macro when in some situations, a macro cell can be of one technology (say 4G) and the micro cell another (let’s assume 5G with >>1Gbps) and may “handover” between these cells on a quite short time >>frame? Assuming this is exposed in the modem API of a mobile handset and available to the browser UA for implementing CH Downlink, would every such “handover” be reflected in the Downlink hint? The CH draft refers to the “Network Info API” which states: "Where possible, this value may be refined to report a more accurate upper bound based on current properties of the interface - e.g. signal strength, modulation algorithm, and other "network weather" variables.” This can mean several things including the client/UA measuring, calculating, prediction, getting network feedback and updating this “network info” very often since the “RAN weather” can change often indeed? Is this applicable to the CH Downlink? Or will CH Downlink “only” reflect the theoretical downlink capacity of the network (technology) it is connected to? 2. Security considerations If HTTP/2 clear text is used (horrible thought) I guess an intermediate could mess with the headers, e.g. triggering a degradation of user experience. Many regards Göran
Received on Friday, 25 March 2016 22:25:29 UTC