Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic

Separate HTTP message format and under-hood transport as two specs should
earn expansibility and portability.

Actually, Web app runs above HTTP and don't care what's transport to use.
And, the different transport can provide the specific benefits.
For example, UDP is easy to setup P2P communication, TCP is for
client/server communication and SPDY for multiplexing connection.

Best regards
  Tom

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>wrote:

> In message <
> CAKZH0EuSWjgbM6No6hDv7wLSy_ZvFQJjgR4z7CMtAd3H9HG2tA@mail.gmail.com>
> , Kevin Cathcart writes:
>
> >The correct thing to do is pretty obvious
> >to me. Document the core HTTP protocol in a message format agnostic
> >way.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >Separate specifications would define message/transport formats.
>
> Seconded.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>