- From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:51:40 +0100
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, Discuss Apps <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Richard P King <rpk@us.ibm.com>
Mark, I don't think the real world has shown much respect for the restricted application model either. Hence the argument for more ambitious requirements. Brian Mark Baker wrote: > > Hi John, > > > The choice of HTTP in our > > requirements comes about from customer feedback. In spite of the > > deficiencies of HTTP, it is the de-facto infrastructure on the Web and > > adding reliability to it is seen as important. > > I don't disagree that reliability is important, but assuming that HTTP > is a transport protocol is a very easy way to do the wrong thing with > it. HTTP defines an application model, which much more narrowly > constrains how reliability fits in than is the case with a transport > protocol. Both HTTPR and the requirements draft do not respect this > model. > > For more on this, see; > > http://internet.conveyor.com/RESTwiki/moin.cgi/RestArchitecturalStyle > > MB > -- > Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com > http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 26 November 2001 03:52:34 UTC