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

Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis

From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 11:03:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMAj1vnTsxe7OLRVHSMZmDF5F=u1MQ8oniLgd_TppXiQ1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
2012/2/5 Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>:
> - Definition of required transport properties/interface for HTTP message
> exchanges.
> - Definition of suitable transports ontop of TCP, TLS, UDP, DTLS, SCTP.
> Each separate, mapping the requirements of the above. Completely
> ignorant of any semanitcs of HTTP beyond the most basic structure.

So, two of the transports you list above (UDP and DTLS) are unreliable; is
reliability not a transport property you expect for HTTP message exchanges?

Of course you can build reliability on top of unreliable transports,
but that seems
to go against the idea of clean layering (since it is usually the app
the recreates
the reliability).  Can you provide some clarification of your thinking here?


Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 20:07:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:00 UTC