W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 13:17:41 -0500
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, patrick mcmanus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Peter L <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <1D7411B9-CA57-49DE-B565-E9B1659BF7B4@mnot.net>
To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>

On 05/04/2012, at 11:55 AM, Mike Belshe wrote:

> In general, I think we should stop talking about unknown transports or transports which we don't think are targets (and I put SCTP into this category).  Designing for transports that don't exist is likely to make our implementations on the transports that do exist (TCP) watered down or worse.  In other words, the least-common-denominator sucks....  Further, NOBODY is going to implement HTTP/2.0 on the unknown transport.  So whatever we do design for these unknown transports will be untested and purely theoretical.

Right. I can see accommodating the potential for these things by putting a bit of thought into how our specs are factored, but am *not* suggesting that we require an existence proof, or spend significant time assuring that they're possible. 

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 18:18:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:59 GMT