W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: How to add new "protocols" ?

From: <touch@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 10:43:59 PST
Message-Id: <9702181843.AA01437@oak.isi.edu>
To: hallam@ai.mit.edu, touch@isi.edu
Cc: bertold@tohotom.vein.hu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it, www-talk@www10.www3.org
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2422
> From: Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
> While I agree with some of Joe's points the multi-protocol nature of http
> is more than mere assertion. HTTP was running over DECnet back in 1992. If
> a protocol provides a stream oriented connection or a very large packet size
> it would be feasible to route http over it. The key is that the communication
> has to be reliable.

Let me be perhaps more clear.

The HTTP protocol *can* clearly run over any connection-oriented
reliable transport. I am not so sure about connectionless, but that

http:// is clearly well-defined, and should not be overloaded.
If HTTP over other protocols is desired, the URL should be
extended to allow the specification, or the protocol name changed
(http: to something else).

However, note that such changes require other possible extensions
to the URL, to allow arbirary names (with ":"'s inside the host
field), etc.).


Joe Touch - touch@isi.edu		    http://www.isi.edu/~touch/
ISI / Project Leader, ATOMIC-2, LSAM       http://www.isi.edu/atomic2/
USC / Research Assistant Prof.                http://www.isi.edu/lsam/
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 1997 11:03:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC