> To make the specification of such mechanisms easier and less prone to error, > p1 should be arranged so that TCP-specific connection details be isolated > from the rest of the specification. An alternate approach would be to factor > such aspects into a separate draft, but this is probably not necessary > (i.e., as long as it's easy to identify which parts of p1 are overridden, > that should be enough). I strongly agree with doing this, and I agree that keeping it in the base doc is fine. Something like this would work: == Section [n] - TCP Considerations == At the time of this writing, HTTP is used exclusively over TCP [ref]. That need not be the case in future, and implementations SHOULD be adaptable to other transport-layer protocols underneath HTTP. When TCP is used, the following apply: ...etc... == end of Section [n] == Yes/no? BarryReceived on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 03:20:12 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:35 GMT