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

Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 06:23:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNed+pHHgt3fCm_Z=TVoz-YohfDsESj800-5XZ-1H2WhPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: tom <zs68j2ee@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Kevin Cathcart <kevincathcart@gmail.com>
So, we are looking to define three layers: the HTTP compatible layer on top
of a "stream" management layer on top of a transport?

Is that what you're wanting?
On Mar 30, 2012 8:12 PM, "tom" <zs68j2ee@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
>
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2012 04:23:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:57 GMT