- From: Andy Davies <dajdavies@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:48:59 +0100
- To: James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com>
- Cc: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>, Nic Jansma <nic@nicj.net>, "Austin,Daniel" <daaustin@paypal-inc.com>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABbusA+LXgD=BrxAT3pzOXzGr8Jvrd2v4XUHZ3Z3Pt8tvhAf8w@mail.gmail.com>
Cool thanks for that detail On 10 April 2013 21:27, James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com> wrote: > Chrome includes it. We match the Navigation Timing spec. > > James > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Andy Davies <dajdavies@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think this might have been the discussion that led to Nav TIming >> changing - >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2010Nov/0046.html I >> also found something Karen Andersen wrote last nigh about it but the >> archive search doesn't find it now :-/ >> >> Jatinder, James: On the Resource Timing front would you able to clarify >> whether IE and Chrome include the SSL handshake or not? >> >> Thanks >> >> Andy >> >> >> On 10 April 2013 17:47, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >>> I’ve updated the Resource Timing connectEnd definition to be more >>> consistent with the Navigation Timing connectEnd definition, >>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/ResourceTiming/Overview.html#dom-performanceresourcetiming-connectend. >>> **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Thanks,**** >>> >>> Jatinder**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *From:* Arvind Jain [mailto:arvind@google.com] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:15 AM >>> *To:* Nic Jansma >>> *Cc:* Austin,Daniel; James Simonsen; Andy Davies; public-web-perf@w3.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [Resource Timing] Why does connectEnd exclude the SSL >>> Handshake?**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> **** >>> >>> - Nic**** >>> >>> http://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: image001.png
Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 14:49:31 UTC