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

Re: HTTP -> Messages -> Transport factoring

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:24:47 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: (wrong string) ™ˆ™˜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>, Peter L <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <67848.1333653887@critter.freebsd.dk>

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

>> In other words, the least-common-denominator sucks.... 

You don't have to resort to l-c-d in order to make your protocol
non-hostile to other transports.

In many ways TCP, certainly compared to many other contenders at
the time of distinction, _is_ l-c-d:  Just a byte stream.

I think we can take it as a given that HTTP over UDP will exist pretty
soon:  Between a surrogate like Varnish or HA-Proxy and the http-server
in the same rack, it would cut a fair bit time of transactions and
a lot of objects fit perfectly well inside a 64Kb UDP packet.

>> Mark Nottingham writes:

>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.


Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 19:25:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:02 UTC