On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 10:23, Bas Westerbaan wrote:
> Given that especially for the web, CDNs used much higher initcwnds,
>
>
> Please, let us not assume every website is behind a CDN.
>
Isn't that assumption reasonable? At least for global websites --- without
CDN performance sucks.
-
> From: Martin Thomson
> Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 10:26 PM
> To: Kampanakis, Panos ; David Benjamin <
> david...@chromium.org>; Deirdre Connolly ; Rob
> Sayre
> Cc: TLS@ietf.org; Childs-Klein, Will
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [TLS] Time to first byte vs time to last byt
: Martin Thomson
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 10:26 PM
To: Kampanakis, Panos ; David Benjamin
; Deirdre Connolly ; Rob Sayre
Cc: TLS@ietf.org; Childs-Klein, Will
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [TLS] Time to first byte vs time to last byte
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the
On Behalf Of * David Benjamin
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:41 PM
> *To:* Deirdre Connolly
> *Cc:* TLS@ietf.org
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [TLS] Time to first byte vs time to last byte
>
> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> n
have experimental measurements to prove it yet. So I will
only make this claim and stop until I have more data.
From: TLS On Behalf Of David Benjamin
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:41 PM
To: Deirdre Connolly
Cc: TLS@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [TLS] Time to first byte vs time to l
This is good work, but we need to be wary of getting too excited about
TTLB, and then declaring performance solved. Ultimately, TTLB simply
dampens the impact of postquantum by mixing in the (handshake-independent)
time to do the bulk transfer. The question is whether that reflects our
goals.
I agree the efficiency concerns are generally overstated, but this study
should have measured QUIC etc, since the web pages will have all sorts of
awful performance problems. But the thing you have to watch out for is when
someone in the datacenter steps on the power cord or something (or DNS is
