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

RE: PEP Integration in RTSP

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 12:07:57 -0700
Message-Id: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F48502D2DBC3@RED-44-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: 'Ross Patterson' <Ross_Patterson@ns.reston.vmd.sterling.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com, confctrl@isi.edu
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3320
PEP is very useful in cases where I need to make sure the server will do
the right thing without first having to negotiate with the server. For
example, I may only want to COPY a resource (using one of the new WebDAV
methods) if I know the servers is a Level 2 compliant DAV server and
thus supports Versioning. Rather than having to first do a discovery on
the server and then sending the method, I can just shoot off the method
with a PEP header specifying my requirements.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ross Patterson [SMTP:Ross_Patterson@ns.reston.vmd.sterling.com]
> Sent:	Friday, May 16, 1997 4:44 PM
> To:	http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com; confctrl@isi.edu
> Subject:	Re: PEP Integration in RTSP
> http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com writes:
> >The authors of RTSP [1] and authors of PEP [2] have been discussing
> how to
> >integrate PEP into RTSP as the standard extension mechanism for RTSP.
> The
> >authors of RTSP have very strong consensus now that we will use PEP,
> and
> >the only question remains:  how will this be integrated?
> Some of us, myself included, don't believe PEP is such a great idea.
> Its bias towards nonstandard extensions with downloadable
> implementations just doesn't jive with the '90s "safe computing"
> world.
> I'll have a very hard time convincing any of my customers to download
> anything into the webservers my company sold them, no matter who's
> responsible for the code.  My personal expectation (not necessarily
> Sterling Software's, as we haven't discussed PEP much) is that PEP in
> the traditionally high-security, high-reliability mainframe world is
> dead on arrival.  I've held off commenting to date as I expect this is
> both a minority viewpoint and an environment where no matter what
> changes are made (short of using URNs to identify already-embedded
> "extensions"), any form of PEP will be simply unacceptable.
> >In the discussions between authors of RTSP and PEP, we came to the
> >conclusion that PEP complience in RTSP should be mandatory, which
> would
> >make the relationship between PEP and RTSP different than the
> relationship
> >between PEP and HTTP.
> If you're going to use PEP, making it a MUST from the start is a very
> good idea.  Some of the weirdness in PEP today derives from HTTP 1.x's
> "don't ask, don't tell" attitude towards unrecognized header fields.
> That was a wise choice at the time, and remains so, but it makes PEP a
> little odd as a result.
> Ross Patterson
> Sterling Software, Inc.
> VM Software Division
Received on Friday, 23 May 1997 12:10:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC