- From: Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:28:45 -0500 (EST)
- To: touch@isi.edu
- Cc: bertold@tohotom.vein.hu, luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-talk@www10.www3.org
While I agree with some of Joe's points the multi-protocol nature of http is more than mere assertion. HTTP was running over DECnet back in 1992. If a protocol provides a stream oriented connection or a very large packet size it would be feasible to route http over it. The key is that the communication has to be reliable. The http:// url has been somewhat of a problem however. Those of us who early on suggested adding a protocol field didn't get heard once the URI fiasco began. I still believe that http://foobar.com:port=protocol/ would be viable unfortunately it was considered an anathema, just as news://server.com/article was at the time - people got a bit wedged on the name issue. Until other protocols appear to be taking off in a manner that indicates a need for a multi-protocol URL its probably irrelevant. I suspect that we are stuck with IP for a good while to come. OSI does not appear to be a spectacular success. Phill
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 1997 11:04:31 UTC