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

Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis

From: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:28:47 +0100
Message-ID: <1328560127.30100.21.camel@home.henriknordstrom.net>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
mån 2012-02-06 klockan 12:05 -0800 skrev Ted Hardie:

> Would you propose different method names for this mode, so that they
> were distinguishable
> to intermediaries, or would propose that the semantics of the method
> be determined by
> the transport on which it arrived?

I would simply state that there is no guaranteed delivery status when
HTTP/UDP is used. Messages MAY be silently lost when using such
transport and it's up to to the application to handle it gracefully. How
is outside of the specification. There is also other very noticeable
limitations of HTTP/UDP such as maximum message size which is fairly
small. I.e. 64KB on a good day.

If reliable datagram transport is desired then use HTTP/SCTP. It's a
very real alternative in the environments and for the applications where
HTTP/UPD is interesting and provide much the same properties in
unordered (but well defined) delivery of interleaved messages and other
nice properties.

Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 20:29:49 UTC

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