- 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>
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