Re: NEW ISSUE: isolate TCP-specific aspects of HTTP

a solution could be include in a Transport Layer section all the 
TCP-specific connection details
and then in a separate document specifying a mechanism for usage of SCTP 
as the transport mechanism for
HTTP (similar to what has been done in SIP with RFC4168)


Barry Leiba wrote:
>> Can we say anything more than "SHOULD be adaptable"?  I don't know it might
>> mean.
>> Let's say, for example, my implementation supports running HTTP over SCTP --
>> what should my implementation do in order to meet that SHOULD?
> Well, I was just giving a sketch.  The SHOULD be adaptable means --
> and perhaps it'd be good to say this more explicitly -- that the
> implementation shouldn't be so tied to TCP that it can't accommodate
> anything else.  Just as we're trying to isolate the TCP-specific
> pieces in the document, the implementations should isolate the
> TCP-specific pieces there.
> Of course, what you have to do to run over SCTP... would be in an
> "SCTP Considerations" section of the document, or in a separate
> document that addresses HTTP over SCTP.  I think of the TCP section
> being included in the base doc as an acknowledgement that it's the
> "mandatory to implement" version, at least for now.
> Barry

Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 12:09:16 UTC