- From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 17:46:54 +0900
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, "Tommy Pauly" <tpauly@apple.com>
Hey Marc, I wonder why RFC 9292 is not appropriate here. That format is designed to be compact, which would very much suit a simple mapping. On the other hand, if space efficiency[1] is important, some amount of compression might be appropriate. However, I'd suggest that cutting back on what is included in the message is better than compression and - for this domain - that seems like a better approach given likely endpoint capacity constraints, robustness requirements, and overall simplicity. [1] ...or size efficiency, but you know, puns On Fri, Mar 31, 2023, at 17:20, Mark Nottingham wrote: > HTTP folks, > > Marc Blanchet (CC:ed) has a draft which we should be aware of: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-blanchet-dtn-http-over-bp/ > > In a nutshell, this is a mapping of HTTP semantics onto the "bundle > protocol" as an alternative transport protocol. Bundle is designed for > operation in high-delay networks (hence the WG name, Delay Tolerant > Networks) such as space. > > Because of the types of organisations that do procurement for things > like space travel, this is likely to need to be standards-track. > > (Marc, anything to add?) > > From a HTTP WG perspective, we should come to agreement about how > involved we want to be in this work. At a minimum, we'll do at least > one HTTPDIR review. Do people feel more is needed -- e.g., closer > coordination after this is adopted by DTN? > > Cheers, > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 31 March 2023 08:47:29 UTC