- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:49:54 -0500
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
The application semantics here are defined: it is a report of a link-following action to a monitor. People argue was to whether it is more like an HTTP GET or HTTP POST, but whether the ping protocol maps onto a GET or POST in HTTP is question you don't have to answer if you get a UDP port and define an protocol spec for it. Tim On 2008-01 -15, at 23:09, Mark Baker wrote: > Hi Tim, > > On 1/15/08, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote: >> Presumably it has been discussed why UDP should not be used? >> It would seem to have the right characteristics. >> It would have less load on the net, by many times. >> And dramatically reduce time, buffer space etc for all parties. >> And it could be filtered out as a luxury on links under abnormal >> stress. >> Anyone got a pointer to the reasons? why not? > > UDP is a possible transport, sure, but it alone doesn't address the > problem because it prescribes no application semantics. i.e. you can > have datagram based messages with either GET or POST semantics. > > Mark. > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 18:50:02 UTC