- From: Jon Crowcroft <J.Crowcroft@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 07:13:10 +0100
- To: touch@isi.edu
- Cc: ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>P-HTTP is basically "IP over TCP" - given the necessary >chunking, muxing, etc. I don't know why that isn't as frightening >to anyone else... um, no - not really - p-http gives you persistent VJCC - thus it is safer than current http practice for the net, as well as kinder to the kernel TCP state machine at browser and server ends.... but i nthe broader perspective, i would agree wit hthe point that many HTTP Gets (or even "JOINs" when i get around to proposing them) will result in an HTTP over RTP/UD, or over SRM, flow being created, rather than over TCP... currently, TCP is like democracy - the worst sort of protocol, except for all the rest when we have a robust mbone, and robust RSVP, RTP/UDP stacks for video, audio, interaction and multicast (server to sets of clients, cache to caches pre-fecth etc etc) will be prevalanet, and TCP will be a minor % of the web use traffic.... of course, all those other flows better have either admission control/reservation (and possible billing) or over engineered nets, or VJCC type mechanisms in - but they can be engineered into an RTP/UDP stack, as has been shown, fr example, in the adaptive video in IVS.....and there are other adaptive congestion control mechanisms (e.g. steve mccanne's receiver driven layered multicast....) so its not all bad! cheers jon
Received on Thursday, 13 June 1996 23:21:47 UTC