W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1995

Re: Draft Minutes of HTTP Working Group, 33rd IETF Meeting, Stockholm

From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 11:48:02 MDT
Message-Id: <9508111848.AA24967@acetes.pa.dec.com>
To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Cc: jg@w3.org, blampson@microsoft.com, janssen@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
    I agree.  There are at least these four  alternatives available to us:
    1. Adopt an existing protocol and its implementation
    2. Adopt an existing protocol and adapt some existing implementation
    3. Adopt an existing protocol and do a new implementation
    4. Do a new protocol and a new implementation
    (And lots of others in between).
    I believe that they are listed in order of desirability.
Will someone please try to explain why we need something besides
TCP?  In particular, what problem is RPC intended to solve?

The "excess overhead packets" problem melts away with persistent
connections; the extra 6 or 7 packets and one RTT are quickly
amortized by the high locality of requests.

Received on Friday, 11 August 1995 12:31:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:14 UTC