W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1997

Re: How to add new "protocols" ?

From: Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:28:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199702181828.NAA04514@muesli.ai.mit.edu>
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
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2423
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

Received on Tuesday, 18 February 1997 11:04:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:01 UTC