W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Not UDP? Re: Proposed HTML ping attribute

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:49:54 -0500
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <663D727A-2D92-44B7-AB27-BD50FFF0D69B@w3.org>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:51 GMT