- From: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:50:32 -0800
- To: Steve Souders <steve@souders.org>
- Cc: Patrick Meenan <pmeenan@webpagetest.org>, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>, Nic Jansma <nic@nicj.net>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, public-web-perf <public-web-perf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADXXVKqMRVvsxGJzSw3198MBrE4xEK=rvaedW65camkGt_=_5g@mail.gmail.com>
Understood, my personal objections to this proposal are: 1) I think we would have to exclude more than just blocking time. 2) I don't think selectively circumventing TAO is a viable strategy.. (1) blocks this. 3) Independent of (2), I'm not convinced we should be defining more duration~like metrics on perf entries, I think we should stick to timestamps - i.e. give applications the raw data and let them define what they care about. Case in point, the proposed metric is redundant in http/2 world. In fact, perhaps even "duration" was an unnecessary addition to the spec, but that ship has sailed. That said, those are own 2 cents, so take it for what its worth :) ig On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Steve Souders <steve@souders.org> wrote: > 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 scenario. > > 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". > > -Steve > > > On 12/30/14 3:02 PM, Ilya Grigorik wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Steve Souders <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> > 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 Tuesday, 6 January 2015 00:51:40 UTC