- From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
- Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 22:55:47 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Roger Pantos <rpantos@apple.com>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, http-live-streaming-review <http-live-streaming-review@group.apple.com>, "Travis W. Brown" <travis@apple.com>, Steve Sinclair <steve.sinclair@apple.com>
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Roger Pantos wrote: > Similarly, we restrict our protocol to HTTP because more generality makes it > too difficult to guarantee interoperability. Your restricting of access to your data only to HTTP doesn't make your protocol any more HTTP (-like). The restriction to HTTP-only is rather artificial and any implementer of this protocol would easily be able to expand it to other application protocols (like for example FTP), couldn't they? Or perhaps that new funky protocol we'll invent two years into the future. In fact, I think the proposal would benefit from loosening its fixation to HTTP. > Because of this we believe that it is important that HTTP appear in the title > of the draft. I disagree. I think HTTP in the title would imply that the protocol has something to do with HTTP, while this hasn't. This only describes a data format basicly, with embedded URIs. > How about live-media-streaming-over-http? How about live-media-streaming-playlist-format ? -- / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 20:56:33 UTC