- From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 12:53:40 -0800
- To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
2012/2/6 Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>: > mån 2012-02-06 klockan 12:05 -0800 skrev Ted Hardie: > >> Would you propose different method names for this mode, so that they >> were distinguishable >> to intermediaries, or would propose that the semantics of the method >> be determined by >> the transport on which it arrived? > > I would simply state that there is no guaranteed delivery status when > HTTP/UDP is used. Messages MAY be silently lost when using such > transport and it's up to to the application to handle it gracefully. There's also no guarantee that all messages will fit into a single UDP packet, so you may get partial messages that need to be discarded. >How > is outside of the specification. There is also other very noticeable > limitations of HTTP/UDP such as maximum message size which is fairly > small. I.e. 64KB on a good day. > > If reliable datagram transport is desired then use HTTP/SCTP. It's a > very real alternative in the environments and for the applications where > HTTP/UPD is interesting and provide much the same properties in > unordered (but well defined) delivery of interleaved messages and other > nice properties. > Note that many of the deployments of SCTP currently run over UDP. regards, Ted > Regards > Henrik >
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 20:57:41 UTC