On 2009-11-12, at 7:45 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
I’m also increasingly of the view that channels-based protocols aren’t necessarily the right way to solve head-of-line blocking problems. There are other methods that do not demand the same overheads. For instance, a simple request identifier can be used for request-response correlation.
A request identifier (say, as an HTTP header) appears to
have a number of useful properties:
- it can be optionally specified, so only clients
supporting the feature need be aware of it
- it can be ignored by the server, so server implementation
is also optional
- there is no latency for channel setup; uniqueness of the
identifier can be a client responsibility, so there is
no negotiation cost
- the same identifier can be applied to chunked responses,
allowing large responses to be interleaved
Would an existing HTTP proxy be confused by interleaved,
"identified" chunks?
I’m actually more excited about the prospect of getting HTTP over SCTP.
What if google began providing their current services over SCTP? This will need a critical mass to get started. (There is also the small problem of missing SCTP client stacks.) Ted.
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.