Re: Adding protocol information to Resource Timing

Yes I listed that case though I didn't elaborate. For that case, the RUM
provider could add that information in the object it uploads. I think it's
too early to add spdy/http2 vs. http given that the protocol is still in
works.


On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:53 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> I appreciate the back channel concern. I just wanted to understand the
> statement that Resource Timing should not repeat information that the
> server already knows. From the spdy-dev email:
> """
> We, at Akamai, are working on using real-user monitoring (RUM) to
> measure server's,
> SPDY vs. HTTP, performance. With variety of protocols (http/spdy2/spdy3)
> in use it is hard to figure out how many components were fetched over what
> protocol in a given page and that makes it hard to understand/trust
> performance measurement results without digging deep into what is on the
> page.
> """
>
> As I understand that email, one server wants to know about resources
> being served by other servers. That's the only reason I asked for
> clarification since I didn't see how James' response to the original
> email addressed the desired use case.
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:41 PM, James Simonsen <simonjam@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > The server that serves the resource knows which protocol it used to serve
> > the resource.
> >
> > In case this is where you're going... The thing I want to avoid is using
> the
> > hundreds of millions of clients on the web as a back channel for relaying
> > information from the resource's server back to the main document's
> server.
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:56 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <
> willchan@chromium.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, I'm less familiar here. Can someone clarify which server knows
> >> what?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Arvind Jain <arvind@google.com> wrote:
> >> > I agree with James. There's the case where RUM collection is done by a
> >> > third
> >> > party but even there, this info could be collected outside of the
> >> > resource
> >> > timing API.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, James Simonsen <
> simonjam@chromium.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I can't speak for everyone, but my opinion is that Resource Timing
> >> >> should
> >> >> not repeat information that the server already knows. You should be
> >> >> able to
> >> >> record the protocol on the server side.
> >> >>
> >> >> James
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:09 AM, McCall, Mike <mmccall@akamai.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> After some internal discussions, a colleague recently started a
> >> >>> thread[1] on the spdy-dev mailing list, asking about having an
> >> >>> interface
> >> >>> for developers to leverage to determine whether or not a web page
> >> >>> resource
> >> >>> was fetched via SPDY (or in the future, HTTP 2.0).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Since the Resource Timing specification already enumerates the
> >> >>> resources
> >> >>> for a
> >> >>> given page, it seems like it would make sense to also include which
> >> >>> protocol was used to fetch a given resource.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> What does the group think?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Mike
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 1.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/spdy-dev/ERaEDaTnt7w
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >
> >
>