- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:24:47 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, William Chan (???) <willchan@chromium.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, patrick mcmanus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Peter L <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
On 05/04/2012, at 11:55 AM, Mike Belshe wrote: >> In other words, the least-common-denominator sucks.... You don't have to resort to l-c-d in order to make your protocol non-hostile to other transports. In many ways TCP, certainly compared to many other contenders at the time of distinction, _is_ l-c-d: Just a byte stream. I think we can take it as a given that HTTP over UDP will exist pretty soon: Between a surrogate like Varnish or HA-Proxy and the http-server in the same rack, it would cut a fair bit time of transactions and a lot of objects fit perfectly well inside a 64Kb UDP packet. >> Mark Nottingham writes: >Right. I can see accommodating the potential for these things by putting >a bit of thought into how our specs are factored, but am *not* >suggesting that we require an existence proof, or spend significant time >assuring that they're possible. 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 Thursday, 5 April 2012 19:25:18 UTC