W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > September 2013

Re: [ResourceTiming] Wire Protocol

From: McCall, Mike <mmccall@akamai.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 10:23:44 -0400
To: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
CC: "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <CE4E089E.142CE%mmccall@akamai.com>
In yesterday's meeting minutes, a few people mentioned that the only
protocols enumerated by resource timing be strictly HTTP-based.  While I
can agree in principle, the web moves much faster than standards bodies.
For example, SPDY first came to light in 2009; it's taken almost four
years for it to get close to being called "HTTP".

What would happen if a UA supported a proprietary protocol, and fetched a
resource via that protocol from the server?  Would Resource Timing ignore
it because it doesn't fall into the enumerated HTTP-only list, leave it
blank, or worse, mislabel it as HTTP?  I think that if a resource was
fetched by a User Agent via HTTP/SPDY/QUIC/etc., it should be labeled as
such.

Mike

On 9/4/13 12:33 PM, "Jatinder Mann" <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote:

>Seeing that all major browser vendors now have some SPDY implementation,
>it seems reasonable that we should consider adding wire protocol
>information to Resource Timing L2 spec. Whether this new attribute
>returns HTTP2, SPDY1/2/3, or something else should be discussed.
>
>Thanks,
>Jatinder
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nottingham, Mark [mailto:mnotting@akamai.com]
>Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 9:42 PM
>To: public-web-perf
>Subject: [ResourceTiming] Wire Protocol
>
>Hi,
>
>Previously, there have been requests [1] to add information to
>ResourceTiming about the wire protocol used in fetches, in particular for
>SPDY.
>
>There was a bit of discussion, but it seemed to stop here [2]:
>
>> I think it's too early to add spdy/http2 vs. http given that the
>>protocol is still in works.
>
>
>HTTP/2.0 [3] is now seeing early implementation [4]. Since the focus of
>HTTP/2.0 is performance, having metrics about how it is performing is
>critical to evaluate its effectiveness and aid its adoption.
>
>Is it really the intent of the WG to wait until the protocol is no longer
>"still in the works" before adding a metrics for it?
>
>I'm happy to make a detailed proposal if that will help unblock this...
>
>Thanks,
>
>1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Jan/0022.html
>2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2013Jan/0031.html
>3. https://github.com/http2/http2-spec
>4. https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/wiki/Implementations
>
>--
>Mark Nottingham    mnot@akamai.com    http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2013 14:24:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:01:21 UTC