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

Re: safe PUT

From: Dave Long <dave@navisoft.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 20:35:30 -0800
Message-Id: <199512300435.UAA20593@geek.navisoft.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com

A mini-rant, from the application developer's perspective.

It's certainly worth considering low-level transport issues
when working on these protocols, however:

* As an apps guy, I have _no control_ over the stack underneath
  me.

Unix boxes tend to implement TCP very well.  WINSOCKs come
in all flavors, some better than others.  We've even used
a package on the Mac that required a patch to select() to
report reset connections.

* Is HTTP tied to TCP?

I tend to think that many of the "problems" that HTTP-NG
addresses are actually with TCP, not HTTP itself.   We've
done work for firms that (horrors!) don't run a TCP network,
but they still see that value of HTTP as a backbone IS protocol.

So, when I see references to "advertising different window sizes",
or "doing a half-duplex shutdown()", I think that it's nice to know
that we can optimize implementations for the commonly used (and
correctly implemented!) transports, but it's much more important
that the HTTP protocol solve problems *at its level of abstraction*,
without making unusual demands upon the transport.

Not usually such a luddite,
-Dave
Received on Friday, 29 December 1995 20:39:38 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:38 EDT