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

Re: How to add new "protocols" ?

From: Albert Lunde <Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:52:03 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199702181952.AA237015523@merle.acns.nwu.edu>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2431
> For the "connection oriented" part, RFC2068 already makes it clear that
> a connection-oriented protocol is not necessary. For "reliable
> transport", that is probably a strict requirement for the headers only.
> Future extension of HTTP might well have to deal with data (e.g. audio,
> video streams) where reliability is not such an issue, and QoS might be
> negotiated (e.g. "I need that gaps in the received video are not longer
> than 5 frames"). Then, the body would not even need a reliable
> transport.

I think you-all are stretching things here. My reading of the current
state of things is that HTTP was designed to work on top of
a protocol reasonably similar to TCP, should the need arise.

A moderate degree of transport-independence is good design.``

I don't think it was intended to run on top of all transports,
and I don't think it should try to be the universal protocol
for all proposes. It seems quite reasonable to define a new URL
scheme for audio or video streams rather than overload http:

    Albert Lunde                      Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 1997 14:10:42 UTC

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