Re: HTTP over Delay-Tolerant Networks

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:
> 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

Received on Friday, 31 March 2023 08:47:29 UTC