- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:45:18 -0700
- To: Roger Pantos <rpantos@apple.com>
- Cc: 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>
Thanks for the reply. FWIW, I agree with Daniel on this one; there are lots of good reasons to purposefully separate the format and the protocol. If you need to specify a combination to use with your software, it's normal practice to say that in the documentation. That's not to say that it wouldn't be appropriate to have a section or appendix on using the format with HTTP, of course. Cheers, On 02/08/2009, at 12:45 PM, Roger Pantos wrote: > > Hello Mark. Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. > > The reason we published the draft was to encourage the production of > interoperable implementations. Similarly, we restrict our protocol > to HTTP because more generality makes it too difficult to guarantee > interoperability. > > Because of this we believe that it is important that HTTP appear in > the title of the draft. But I agree that we should avoid the > appearance of endorsement by the HTTP standards bodies, so it makes > sense to consider a different title. > > How about live-media-streaming-over-http? > > > Roger. > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 21:45:58 UTC