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

Re: How to add new "protocols" ?

From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:31:50 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199702191731.SAA10137@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
To: touch@isi.edu
Cc: ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2472
> There is only one known protocol for which any of this
> works, as pointed out earlier - TCP. 
> Using non IP reliable full-duplex connection transports requires
> redoing the rest of the URL anyway (to change the interpretation of the
> host address and port, which is IPv4-specific), so using a new protocol
> ID (http-tp4:) is necessary anyway.
> Supporting HTTP over non full-duplex, connection-oriented protocols
> requires other modificiations - i.e., serial numbers to associate
> responses with requests, at least.
> What is the advantage to a transparent selection of transport
> protocol, given these constraints??

Flexibility in switching transport protocols without having to rewrite
the Web matherial.

This is not a problem for relative URLs, but it is a major problem
for absolute URLs, since the supplier of a document generally has
no control over the documents referencing it. Hence even if one
develops a wonderful mechanism to make the transport protocol
explicit, you have to stick with the existing one (http over TCP)
because of backward compatibility.

Luigi Rizzo                  |  Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione
email: luigi@iet.unipi.it    |  Universita' di Pisa
tel: +39-50-568533           |  via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy)
fax: +39-50-568522           |  http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 1997 10:38:52 UTC

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