- From: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:14:41 -0700
- To: Nic Jansma <nic@nicj.net>
- Cc: "Austin,Daniel" <daaustin@paypal-inc.com>, James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com>, Andy Davies <dajdavies@gmail.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOYaDdMbV8=xzmhF6j9e2HCzndLGUEGtSKZ97OUHUAb5W5VKDA@mail.gmail.com>
Yes let's fix it. I suspect it's just an oversight - we changed the text in Navigation Timing as a result of this thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2010Nov/0046.html and we probably forgot to make the change in Resource Timing specification. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Nic Jansma <nic@nicj.net> wrote: > NavigationTiming and ResourceTiming differ in how connectEnd is defined: > > NavigationTiming (http://www.w3c-test.org/webperf/specs/NavigationTiming/ > ): > > connectEnd<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/NavigationTiming/Overview.html#dom-performancetiming-connectend> > *must include *the time interval to establish the transport connection as > well as other time interval such as SSL handshake and SOCKS authentication. > > ResourceTiming (http://www.w3c-test.org/webperf/specs/ResourceTiming/): > > connectEnd<http://www.w3.org/TR/resource-timing/#dom-performanceresourcetiming-connectend>must include the time interval to establish the transport connection. > *It must not include other *time interval such as SSL handshake and SOCKS > authentication. > > IMO the NT spec has the better definition, as > secureConnectionEnd==connectEnd in this case (which is why > secureConnectionEnd was omitted from both of the specs). Also, the 'TCP' > phase in the images in both NT and RT specs shows connectEnd including > SSL/SOCKS. > > > - Nichttp://nicj.net/ > @NicJ > > On 4/10/2013 10:45 AM, Austin,Daniel wrote: > > There is no such animal as 'SecureConnectionEnd', in either nav or res > timing. It's a significant flaw in the model. Also missing are details > about the underlying OCSP calls. This significantly reduces the utility of > the spec, IMHO. > > R, > D- > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 10, 2013, at 3:56 AM, "James Simonsen" <simonjam@google.com> wrote: > > I can only guess it's because that's covered by sslConnectStart/End. > But in the case of browsers that don't provide that, it seems like they > should fall back to including it connectStart/End. Anyone else have an > opinion? > > James > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Andy Davies <dajdavies@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I understand why the spec states that connectEnd excludes SOCKS >> authentication etc., but don't quite understand why it excludes the SSL >> Handshake >> >> "connectEnd must include the time interval to establish the transport >> connection. It must not include other time interval such as SSL handshake >> and SOCKS authentication." >> >> I've had a hunt back through the archives but I couldn't find any >> reference as to why. >> >> Is anyone able to explain? >> >> Thanks >> >> Andy >> > > >
Attachments
- image/png attachment: cdhejede.png
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2013 16:15:10 UTC