- From: Nottingham, Mark <mnotting@akamai.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 19:21:41 -0500
- To: "McCall, Mike" <mmccall@akamai.com>
- CC: public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
That's why I think Resource Timing should just specify a container for this information, not the range of possible values; leave that up to the registry (for standard ones) and implementations (for draft / experimental ones). Cheers, On 06/09/2013, at 12:23 AM, "McCall, Mike" <mmccall@akamai.com> wrote: > 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/ >> >> >> > -- Mark Nottingham mnot@akamai.com http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 6 September 2013 00:22:09 UTC