| |||||||||||||
bufferbloatnpnbufferbloatnpnPosted Feb 12, 2011 6:53 UTC (Sat) by dtlin (✭ supporter ✭, #36537)In reply to: bufferbloat by Lennie Parent article: Increasing the TCP initial congestion window
Look for
(Log in to post comments)
bufferbloatnpn Posted Feb 12, 2011 12:04 UTC (Sat) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link]
That is all very nice, but it is useless if it is not properly described and put forward as a standard. Atleast that one part is on the IETF site:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg-01
I'm talking about this one, it's just sitting there (atleast that is what it looks like to me):
http://www.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-protocol
Without something at IETF or something which looks mostly final why would other browser vendors and webserver people implement it ? Without atleast that, it is useless.
This is the last status:
http://groups.google.com/group/spdy-dev/browse_thread/thr...
Who knows, maybe this is the reason why:
http://groups.google.com/group/spdy-dev/browse_thread/thr...
He is just to busy and there isn't anyone else to help him ?
;-)
bufferbloatnpn Posted Feb 16, 2011 17:22 UTC (Wed) by mbelshe (guest, #72948) [Link]
Ha!
Well, I'm glad you guys are interested. I assure you that we're still hard at work on it. It just takes time.
This year, we'll be much more active and look to get IETF support. Unfortunately, some things just can't be rushed.
Mike
bufferbloatnpn Posted Feb 17, 2011 9:28 UTC (Thu) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link]
For something as basic as the use of TCP for HTTP, I prefer to do it right instead of working around the problems. HTTP has always had this 'bug' that it only allowed one request at a time over HTTP (pipelining exists but did not find widespread use because backwardscompatibility).
SPDY sounds to me like the right way, instead of adding more TCP-connections all with a larger initial windows size.
Bufferbloat is a different problem, but adding more TCP-connections with larger initial window sizes wouldn't help either.
SPDY seems to also be about delivering fast TLS. That would help a lot, we've seen to many problems with cookies getting picked up by others.
Maybe we don't want to use it for certain static files, atleast that is what people think when they see what is happening with Google SSL/Google Images. Maybe it is just a loadbalancer/TLS-sessions problem, it breaks TLS Session Resumption ?
If browsers that use SPDY are shown to be faster and people flock to it, it will also help spread the support for SNI. Although I think people who use IE on XP are probably not speedfreaks anyway.
But the more reasons people have not use IE on XP the better. :-)
|
|||||||||||||