W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > January 2015

Re: add "networkDuration" to Resource Timing

From: Steve Souders <steve@souders.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 11:40:51 -0800
Message-ID: <54AAE8C3.2040404@souders.org>
To: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, Patrick Meenan <pmeenan@webpagetest.org>
CC: Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>, Nic Jansma <nic@nicj.net>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
Hi, Ilya.

The proposal in my initial email is still correct: expose 
"networkDuration" without TAO restrictions, where "networkDuration" does 
not include blocking time.

The primary issue is that in the non-TAO scenario the only metric 
(duration) is misleading and we see that experienced developers are 
using it incorrectly. We need to get better insight for the non-TAO 

I tried to say that the name didn't matter, but I think it's causing 
confusion and derailing this thread. So let me propose a different name 
that might help: "loadtime".


On 12/30/14 3:02 PM, Ilya Grigorik wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Steve Souders <steve@souders.org 
> <mailto:steve@souders.org>> wrote:
>     > I think the current definition of "duration" is correct
>     I've never questioned that the definition of "duration" is
>     incorrect. Instead, I'm suggesting that we add a new metric called
>     something like "networkDuration".
> Seems like there are two separate threads here then:
> 1) proposal to add 'network duration', which excludes blocking and 
> cache times... but should (for correctness) include redirect cases 
> [a]? The latter gets real tricky with cross-origin redirects.
> 2) exposing 'network duration' without TAO restriction.
> I have a feeling (2) would be a really hard sell as we'd be exposing 
> an explicit cache vs. network fetch signal, and in effect circumvent 
> current TAO restrictions. As for (1), it's a computable metric... as 
> such, we're only talking about convenience - right?
> ig
> [a] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2014Nov/0040.html
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Patrick Meenan 
> <pmeenan@webpagetest.org <mailto:pmeenan@webpagetest.org>> wrote:
>     Hmm, WebPageTest may report "something" in the blocked time but I
>     think it's always forced to -1 since I don't currently track it
>     internally.  That said, it's not that hard to add and I'll see if
>     I can get it in before the next HTTP Archive crawl.
> Thanks Pat! Really curious to see the results...
> ig
Received on Monday, 5 January 2015 19:41:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:01:27 UTC