W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2000

Re: XML protocol comparisons

From: Michael Mealling <michael@bailey.dscga.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:44:09 -0400
To: Justin Chapweske <justin@cyrus.net>
Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20000405084409.C25231@bailey.dscga.com>
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 02:23:50PM -0600, Justin Chapweske wrote:
> I know that someone mentioned BXXP on here before, and I just have to
> ask what if any value does it provide over the webmux protocol that was
> specified for HTTP-NG?  There are so many juicy gems to be gathered from
> HTTP-NG, so even though it may not have happened as a whole, I still
> think the individual components are valid.

One major one is that BXXP doesn't say anything about what it transports
or what its interaction model is (other than session oriented). One of
BXXP's goals was to allow for a protocol where the actual elements
were unlimited. The outcome is that BXXP can frame and multiplex
anything that can be encoded in a MIME body. The channel maintenance
stuff is in XML but that doesn't mean the actual protocol elements
have to be...

BTW, I talked with Marshall after the meeting about a UDP version and
he thought it was doable, especially if you require the frame (segment)
size to be under the 512 byte limit....

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions	|          www.lp.org          |  michaelm@netsol.com
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2000 08:56:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:56 GMT