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

Re: Q: protocolls and fault tolerance

From: Andreas Brusinsky <brusinsk@ibdr.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 14:46:59 +0200 (MET DST)
To: touch@isi.edu
Cc: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.91.970530142414.5272A-100000@ibdr121.inf.tu-dresden.de>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3373
On Thu, 29 May 1997 touch@ISI.EDU wrote:
> We did some analysis of HTTP on T/TCP, ARDP, and a few other 
> base protocols. It was analysis-level only, though.

So is there up to now  only a HTTP based on TCP ?

Is there a reference to a  paper or something discussing the mentionend

> HTTP over ATM doesn't make much sense, per se, because:
But aren't backbones rely on ATM to be fast enougth?
Bandwith reservation could take place on na ATM network, which
is - I believe - not possible with IP up to now. 

And as far as I know there are no really good IP on ATM realisations.

> 	HTTP uses URLs, 
> 	URLs use DNS, 
> 	DNS is an name->IPnumber mapping
But URLs or DNS names could be mapped to something else - another protocoll 
would probably have also a kind of addressing framework. 
> PS - what's the win if straight on ATM? More expensive end equipment?
Hopefully ATM hardware will become less expensive in future. It
is probably overpriced nowdays anyway.
> Joe
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Friday, 30 May 1997 05:51:08 UTC

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