Re: iPhone streaming Internet-Draft posted

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 

> 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 ?



Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 20:56:33 UTC