W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: [touch@isi.edu: draft may be of interest]

From: Jon Crowcroft <J.Crowcroft@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 07:13:10 +0100
To: touch@isi.edu
Cc: ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <1121.834732790@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/913

 >P-HTTP is basically "IP over TCP" - given the necessary
 >chunking, muxing, etc. I don't know why that isn't as frightening
 >to anyone else...

um, no - not really - p-http gives you persistent VJCC - thus it is
safer than current http practice for the net, as well as kinder to the
kernel TCP state machine at browser and server ends....

but i nthe broader perspective, i would agree wit hthe point that many
HTTP Gets (or even "JOINs" when i get around to proposing them) will
result in an HTTP over RTP/UD, or over SRM, flow being created,
 rather than over TCP...

currently, TCP is like democracy - the worst sort of protocol, except
for all the rest when we have a robust mbone, and robust RSVP, RTP/UDP
stacks for video, audio, interaction and multicast (server to sets of
clients, cache to caches pre-fecth etc etc) will be prevalanet, and
TCP will be a minor % of the web use traffic....

of course, all those other flows better have either admission
control/reservation (and possible billing) or over engineered nets, or
VJCC type mechanisms in - but they can be engineered into an RTP/UDP
stack, as has been shown, fr example, in the adaptive video in
IVS.....and there are other adaptive congestion control mechanisms
(e.g. steve mccanne's receiver driven layered multicast....)

so its not all bad!


Received on Thursday, 13 June 1996 23:21:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC