W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: iPhone streaming Internet-Draft posted

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:45:18 -0700
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, http-live-streaming-review <http-live-streaming-review@group.apple.com>, "Travis W. Brown" <travis@apple.com>, Steve Sinclair <steve.sinclair@apple.com>
Message-Id: <4824828D-A00A-4E43-BE15-98A363BF2720@mnot.net>
To: Roger Pantos <rpantos@apple.com>
Thanks for the reply.

FWIW, I agree with Daniel on this one; there are lots of good reasons  
to purposefully separate the format and the protocol. If you need to  
specify a combination to use with your software, it's normal practice  
to say that in the documentation.

That's not to say that it wouldn't be appropriate to have a section or  
appendix on using the format with HTTP, of course.

Cheers,


On 02/08/2009, at 12:45 PM, Roger Pantos wrote:
>
> Hello Mark. Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this.
>
> The reason we published the draft was to encourage the production of  
> interoperable implementations. Similarly, we restrict our protocol  
> to HTTP because more generality makes it too difficult to guarantee  
> interoperability.
>
> Because of this we believe that it is important that HTTP appear in  
> the title of the draft. But I agree that we should avoid the  
> appearance of endorsement by the HTTP standards bodies, so it makes  
> sense to consider a different title.
>
> How about live-media-streaming-over-http?
>
>
> Roger.
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 21:45:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT