W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > March 1999

RE: need a reviewer (or three) for draft-cai-ssdp-v1-00.txt

From: Koen Holtman <Koen.Holtman@cern.ch>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 15:38:24 +0100 (MET)
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, web@apps.ietf.org, discuss@apps.ietf.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95a.990316152137.13013G-100000@suncms33.cern.ch>

I just read the draft.  I think the basic idea of putting a small HTTP
message as the payload in a broadcast UDP message is rather cute.  But it
will only remain cute for me if the HTTP message size stays within the
maximum safe/generally supported size of a single broadcast UDP message. I
don't know what this size is nowadays, I am getting conflicting data from
various sources.

Complex to-be-defined mechanisms for supporting arbitrary-length
HTTP-over-UDP broadcast would spoil the idea for me. 

Anyway, I would not consider this to be something on top of HTTP, it is
rather something that re-uses some of the extensible syntax in HTTP, which
is entirely legitimate.  As the use case is LAN based (or at least
intranet based), I don't think the IETF should devote major resources to
this.

Koen.

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Larry Masinter wrote:

> > one of the other ADs ran across this draft, which layers a protocol
> > on top of HTTP.
> 
> It layers a protocol on top of something which is not
> defined (yet, although it promises to): HTTP layered
> over (multicast and unicast) UDP.
> 
> I think HTTP layered over multicast & unicast UDP will
> be exceedingly difficult to define correctly. HTTP messages
> and responses are arbitrary length, and require one-for-one
> responses to requests.
> 
> >...  we're looking for a few good HTTP experts to
> > sanity check this draft
> 
> The 'sanity' of this approach escapes me.
> 
> Larry
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 1999 09:39:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:00 UTC