- From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:00:25 +0300
- To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
- CC: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
a solution could be include in a Transport Layer section all the TCP-specific connection details and then in a separate document specifying a mechanism for usage of SCTP as the transport mechanism for HTTP (similar to what has been done in SIP with RFC4168) Sal Barry Leiba wrote: >> Can we say anything more than "SHOULD be adaptable"? I don't know it might >> mean. >> >> Let's say, for example, my implementation supports running HTTP over SCTP -- >> what should my implementation do in order to meet that SHOULD? >> > > Well, I was just giving a sketch. The SHOULD be adaptable means -- > and perhaps it'd be good to say this more explicitly -- that the > implementation shouldn't be so tied to TCP that it can't accommodate > anything else. Just as we're trying to isolate the TCP-specific > pieces in the document, the implementations should isolate the > TCP-specific pieces there. > > Of course, what you have to do to run over SCTP... would be in an > "SCTP Considerations" section of the document, or in a separate > document that addresses HTTP over SCTP. I think of the TCP section > being included in the base doc as an acknowledgement that it's the > "mandatory to implement" version, at least for now. > > Barry > >
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 12:09:16 UTC