- From: Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 11:08:29 +0800
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, hybi <hybi@ietf.org>, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 10/16/2017 11:01 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com> wrote: >>> I think that you are exaggerating the cost here. The ws handshake and >>Eh... why do you say that? It takes less than 3 RTs? >> That is 3 RTT, right? > > I'm basing this off how I understand h2 to work, and the example in > the draft shows an unnecessary extra RTT; that's all. > Patrick himself says "...Again, I agree you could remove an rtt (or probably 2)..." I think you misunderstood something... as it is he has to wait for the SETTINGs to tell him it's possible, wait for the CONNECT and response and wait for the ws handshake to go through before he can send something. It's 3 x RTT AFAICS and nothing is "exaggerat[ed]". That's alright if it's the default situation for HTTP/1 ws guys... but there should be a way like PUSH_PROMISE to dispense will all that junk for what will be increasingly common native-h2 ws client. -Andy
Received on Monday, 16 October 2017 03:08:57 UTC