Re: [minutes] 2012-01-11 Web Performance WG Teleconference #57

I pulled some stats from GoogleBot:
*Fraction of pages that require client authentication: 0.000699487415.*
*
*
Arvind

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  *Meeting Summary:*
>
> ** **
>
> ***1.      ****Timing Spec Updates*
>
> **a.       **ACTION-59, 61, 64 and 74****
>
> Jatinder made updates to Performance Timeline, Resource Timing, User
> Timing and Page Visibility to address ACTION-59, 61, 64 and 74. The WG will
> review these changes prior to closing the action items.****
>
> ** **
>
> **b.       **Navigation Timing Test cases****
>
> Karen updated test_navigation_type_reload.html to address ACTION-21 and
> test_timing_attributes_order.html and blank_page_unload.html to address
> ACTION-75. The test is currently pointing to a wrong resource location that
> will be updated shortly. Tony will review the tests and make sure they work
> in all browsers.****
>
> ** **
>
> Zhiheng had submitted test_document_readiness_exist.html and
> test_performance_attributes_exist_in_object.html. IE fails the former and
> passes the latter; Chrome and FF pass both tests. Karen to investigate and
> see why IE is failing on the first prior to next week.****
>
> ** **
>
> Karen will be submitting a test case to test the NavigationStart attribute
> per ACTION-76 for next week.****
>
> ** **
>
> ACTION-19 was closed as we don’t believe a persistent connection test is
> necessary as this isn’t a standardized feature and required by Navigation
> Timing.****
>
> ** **
>
> ***2.      ****Client Authentication Phase*
>
> The issue of whether the Navigation Timing specification should define a
> phase that measures client authentication was brought up on the mailing
> list,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2012Jan/0008.html,
> and conference call. Arvind will follow up with data to understand how
> common http client authentication is. If data indicates this phase is
> common enough that it merits inclusion in the spec, the WG feels that this
> can be covered in a future version of Navigation Timing.****
>
> * *
>
> ***3.      ****Navigation Timing to Proposed Recommendation*
>
> The WG has agreed to close all open Navigation Timing action items, which
> are limited to test suite updates, within this week and move the Navigation
> Timing specification to Proposed Recommendation next week, January, 18,
> 2012.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Detailed Notes:*****
>
> * *
>
> *Web Perf Teleconference #57 1/11/2012*
>
> * *
>
> *IRC log:* http://www.w3.org/2012/01/11-webperf-irc****
>
> ** **
>
> *Meeting Minutes:* http://www.w3.org/2012/01/11-webperf-minutes.html  ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Attendees*
>
> *Present for Navigation Timing, Resource Timing and User Timing (4-5PM
> EST/1-2PM PST)*
>
> Philippe Le Hegaret, Jatinder Mann, Arvind Jain, Karen Anderson, Tony
> Gentilcore, James Simonsen****
>
> ** **
>
> *Pr**esent for Page Visibility, Efficient Script Yielding, Display Paint
> Notifications (4-5PM EST/2-3PM PST)*
>
> Meeting cancelled.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Scribe *
>
> Jatinder Mann****
>
> ** **
>
> *Contents*
>
> *Agenda*
>
> **1.       **Discuss and review submitted spec and test case updates.****
>
> **2.       **Discuss progress on remaining open action items****
>
> **3.       **Discuss client authentication timing attribute****
>
> ** **
>
> ----
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ****
>
> * *
>
> Topics: Spec and Test Updates from last week****
>
> *Jatinder:* Karen and I have updated the Page Visibility, and Timing
> specs to complete Action items 59, 61, 64 and 74.
> ... Please review those changes.
> ... Karen has pushed out two test cases in Action 21 and 75.****
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/actions/18****
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/actions/19****
>
> *Arvind:* Let's go through Navigation Timing open items and see what
> remains.****
>
> <*plh*> close action-19****
>
> <*trackbot*> ACTION-19 Investigate tests around persistent connections
> closed****
>
> *Tony:* I'm inclined to say that persistent connections isn't a part of
> HTML5 spec and probably can't be tested. Let's close****
>
> close action-18****
>
> <*trackbot*> ACTION-18 Follow up on test coverage and propose new test
> cases. closed****
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/actions/57****
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/webperf/track/actions/75****
>
>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/approved/navigation-timing/html5/test_timing_attributes_order.html
> ****
>
> *Tony:* Future test cases should always go to submission folder for
> review prior to moving to approval folder.****
>
> *Jatinder:* Let's keep action-75 open so that we can fix the typo thats
> causing the test to fail.****
>
> <*plh*>
> http://w3c-test.org/webperf/tests/approved/navigation-timing/html5/test_navigation_type_reload.html
> ****
>
> *Jatinder:* Karen to update test_navigation_type_reload.html and
> test_timing_attributes_order.html to fix the resource issue and Tony will
> review.****
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-perf/2012Jan/0008.html****
>
> *Jatinder:* What are the WG's thoughts on client authentication modal
> dialogs? Users could impact aggregate timing by sitting on a modal dialogs.
> ****
>
> *Tony:* There are other slow javascript dialogs, alerts that could also
> impact the overall timing.****
>
> *Jatinder:* I don't think we would want to throw away the client
> authentication time, as the overall performance timeline shouldn't be
> impacted. Our options might be to include a new phase.
> ... we expect the client authentication dialogs to occur between
> connectStart and responseEnd.****
>
> *Arvind:* HTTP Client authentication might have smaller usage as time
> goes on.
> ... We should be able to get data to see how many webpages in the world
> use this feature.****
>
> *Tony:* We need a spec update here regardless. Either we add the new
> phases or how our current phases work around this.****
>
> *Arvind:* Well, the problem still exists for proxy servers. There may be
> many more such small edge cases like this.
> ... Either we create a new parallel time for authentication. I don't think
> we should broaden the scope of redirects.****
>
> *Jatinder:* Arvind will follow up with data on how common these issues
> are and see if we even want to make any change here.****
>
> *Arvind:* I think we should target getting this spec to PR.****
>
> *Jatinder:* Let's plan to update all test cases for next week and target
> entering PR then.****
>
> *Tony:* I agree with that plan.****
>
> ** **
>