W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-ext@w3.org > April to June 1998

HTTP-EXT minutes, charter

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 06:15:58 PDT
To: <ietf-http-ext@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001bd92df$935c3d60$15d0000d@copper-208.parc.xerox.com>
I think this note from Keith might indicate a request for HTTP-EXT
to consider these guidelines as part of its charter.

At the official IETF site, I noticed a couple of things:
a) there were no minutes posted for the HTTP-EXT bof.
b) HTTP-EXT is not listed as an official working group

Minding to the simple administrative responsibilities for IETF working
groups is important and doesn't consume that much time. If this
work is going to proceed, someone should attend to it.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Keith
Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 2:18 PM
To: walker@dazel.com
Cc: Paul Moore; Keith Moore; ipp@pwg.org
Subject: Re: IPP> review of IPP documents 

> > Excellent point. So why the heck are we using HTTP for IPP?
> Although one could take this as a facetious response, it always seems
> to me be an important question worth asking again.  If IPP and others
> are approved as standard application protocols built on top of HTTP,
> then this is a green flag that HTTP is an acceptable transport for
> application protocols.  And we will see more.

Yes.  There's a lot of interest in layering other things over HTTP,
for reasons including:

firewall/proxy/NAT compatibility
leveraging SSL/TLS
ease of prototyping using CGI and/or client libraries

However, several different uses of HTTP tend to pull the protocol in
several different directions, and potentially use it in ways that
conflict with one another.  For example, you don't want a request or
response header used slightly differently by X-over-http than by
Y-over-http, because this might confuse proxies, or require slight
tweaks to client libraries.  Similarly for use of HTTP error codes by
different protocols.  And you want to make sure that firewalls can
distinguish X from Y.

HTTP is already very complex, and having lots of special cases for
different protocols doesn't make it any simpler.

> So, is the IETF supporting (even encouraging ?) application protocols
> to be built using HTTP as a transport?  Or are these protocols that
> are currently being developed (IPP, WebDAV, etc) just considered test
> cases to see if the idea will fly?

I see IPP as breaking new ground in this area.  Ideally, IETF should
have an RFC with guidelines for how to layer protocols on top of HTTP
(and TLS), so that future groups won't have to suffer as much as IPP.

WebDAV is a special case...because it's basically manipulating web
pages, I see it as an extension to the HTTP service rather than a
separate protocol layered on top of HTTP.

Received on Monday, 8 June 1998 09:36:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 1 July 2021 15:49:08 UTC