- From: John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:45:32 +0000
- To: discuss@apps.ietf.org
John Ibbotson
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
12/04/2001 cc:
08:24 AM From: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Subject: Re: Requirements for reliable message delivery(Document
link: John Ibbotson)
Agree, HTTP won't go away in the near (or not so near) future. I believe
there is the opportunity for the IETF to develop the kind of reliable
protocol our requirements draft addresses. However, we can't ignore HTTP in
the near term and adding reliability to it with relatively few changes
would be a pragmatic solution - certainly labeling users of HTTP as
ignorant is probably not the way to go :-)
John
XML Technology and Messaging,
IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park,
Winchester, SO21 2JN
Tel: (work) +44 (0)1962 815188 (home) +44 (0)1722 781271
Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898
Notes Id: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM
email: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com
Brian E
Carpenter To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
<brian@hursley cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, John Ibbotson/UK/IBM@IBMGB,
.ibm.com> Discuss Apps <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Richard P
King/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
11/26/2001 Subject: Re: Requirements for reliable message delivery
03:52 PM
Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > I don't think the real world has shown much respect for the
> > restricted application model either. Hence the argument for more
> > ambitious requirements.
>
> I guess the question is whether the IETF should follow the "real world"
> when the "real world" demands things (like layering messaging over HTTP)
> that are technically unsound.
But that's a solution, and we have to look for the requirements that
have generated that solution, so that we can create a better solution.
That's how I understand the draft.
Brian
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 10:52:14 UTC