- From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:31:50 +0100 (MET)
- To: touch@isi.edu
- Cc: ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> There is only one known protocol for which any of this > works, as pointed out earlier - TCP. > > Using non IP reliable full-duplex connection transports requires > redoing the rest of the URL anyway (to change the interpretation of the > host address and port, which is IPv4-specific), so using a new protocol > ID (http-tp4:) is necessary anyway. > > Supporting HTTP over non full-duplex, connection-oriented protocols > requires other modificiations - i.e., serial numbers to associate > responses with requests, at least. > > What is the advantage to a transparent selection of transport > protocol, given these constraints?? Flexibility in switching transport protocols without having to rewrite the Web matherial. This is not a problem for relative URLs, but it is a major problem for absolute URLs, since the supplier of a document generally has no control over the documents referencing it. Hence even if one develops a wonderful mechanism to make the transport protocol explicit, you have to stick with the existing one (http over TCP) because of backward compatibility. Luigi -----------------------------+-------------------------------------- Luigi Rizzo | Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione email: luigi@iet.unipi.it | Universita' di Pisa tel: +39-50-568533 | via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) fax: +39-50-568522 | http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ _____________________________|______________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 1997 10:38:52 UTC