- From: Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:25:12 -0800
- To: "Aaron Heady (BING AVAILABILITY)" <aheady@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Chase Douglas <chase@newrelic.com>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOYaDdP2WEAbTrQ8MTzFZRb0psEPcsWKsQ-LLPJ2e9a_hSyDMA@mail.gmail.com>
I'm not sure what you mean by sequential. Do you mean to say it should not be the real time of the event? On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Aaron Heady (BING AVAILABILITY) < aheady@microsoft.com> wrote: > The timestamp on the navigation error logs should be sequential. If your > server logs are sequential, it ought to be possible to correlate, depending > on how much data mining you want to do. > > > > We tend to use a unique identifier per URL to help reduce this problem. > Not on every page, but on everything you might want to be able to clearly > correlate logs with, or across systems. > > > > > > > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/NavigationErrorLogging/Overview.html > startTime attribute > > The startTime attribute MUST return a DOMTimeStamp<http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/core.html#Core-DOMTimeStamp>with the time immediately after the user agent finishes prompting > to unload<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/browsers.html#prompt-to-unload-a-document>the previous document while > navigating <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/browsers.html#navigate> to the > document that resulted in an error. > > And > > > 4.4 Monotonic Clock > > The value of the timing attributes must monotonically increase to ensure > timing attributes are not skewed by adjustments to the system clock while > recording error data. The difference between any two chronologically > recorded timing attributes must never be negative. > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > > > > *From:* Chase Douglas [mailto:chase@newrelic.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:47 AM > *To:* Arvind Jain > *Cc:* Aaron Heady (BING AVAILABILITY); public-web-perf > > *Subject:* Re: Navigation Error Logging spec update > > > > One thing I've noticed in the timeline specs, so not just this spec, is > that it is not easy to match up a timeline event entry with a specific > request. If I hit the same endpoint twice, but one time it errors with one > reason, and the other time it errors for a different reason, I don't really > know which failed why unless I track the chronologic order of requests. Has > there been any discussion about this issue? > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote: > > I think we should not retry the logging fetch. I hope that addresses the > DDOS issue. > > > > Arvind > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Aaron Heady (BING AVAILABILITY) < > aheady@microsoft.com> wrote: > > At some point we discussed how the UA should behave if it is a private > browsing session. It should likely not log anything. Does that need to be > alluded to in 5 Privacy and Security? > > > > Looking at *enableNavigationErrorReporting. *This looks like it could > spiral out of control if both the content origin and the logging origin is > host on the same architecture. For example: > > > > A request to http://example.com results in a HTTP 500 because of a bug on > the origin when it is under too much load (DDOS, internal capacity issue, > etc). The UA formats a NavigationErrorEntry and prepares to send it to > http://example.com/logging. That in turn results in a 500 error, and > increases the load on the origin. > > > > Should there be some back off logic? If a logging fetch fails, don’t try > again for n*2 seconds, doubling as it continues to fail. If a logging fetch > fails, does it retry? That is getting into the beacon logic, but it seems > like if we are going to allow some global set of UA’s to automatically send > logging fetches during errors, then we need some idea to limit how much > further impact they could cause, or it is DDOS waiting to happen. > > > > Aaron > > > > > > *From:* Arvind Jain [mailto:arvind@google.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, December 8, 2013 11:32 AM > *To:* public-web-perf > *Subject:* Re: Navigation Error Logging spec update > > > > Checking in. > > > > Do folks have any comments on the draft? > > > > Arvind > > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote: > > I added two methods to the interface to allow reporting of errors in > real time to a report url as per *ACTION-117 -* *Add method to allow > ability to send to a third party url.* > > > > > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/NavigationErrorLogging/Overview.html > > > > Please review and let me know if you have any concerns. > > > > Arvind > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 22:25:47 UTC