- From: David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:55:37 -0600
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Technical Architecture Group WG <www-tag@w3.org>, public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
I looked briefly into bosh and I wasn't sure why their reason for tunnelling GET/POST etc. over HTTP POST was so much more palatable to web arch than WS-*s usage. My guess is they have similar reasons to the WS-* community, that they wanted a uniform layer of GET/POST to be able to work bi-directionally without limitations of HTTP on each message, such as non-addressable receivers. Cheers, Dave On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > I'm in the IETF apparea meeting, enjoying these presentations > on BOSH, Bayeaux, WebSock, rHTTP, > > 10:00 Bidirectional HTTP: BOSH, Bayeux, COMET, WebSockets, rHTTP > Peter Saint-André, Salvatore Loreto, Greg Wilkins, and/or > Mark Lentczner? > http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0124.html > http://svn.cometd.org/trunk/bayeux/bayeux.html > draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-02.txt > draft-lentczner-rhttp-00 > http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/74/apparea.html > > > I can't seem to find a pointer to this nice summary by Mark L. > > mnot brought up BCP56... > > peter@jabber.org: "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate" > peter@jabber.org: http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp56 > -- http://jabber.ietf.org/logs/apparea/2009-03-23.txt > > which reminds me of TAG ISSUE-16 HTTPSubstrate-16, which > we recently estimated is all over but the crying, i.e. PENDINGREVIEW > > Should HTTP be used as a substrate protocol? Does W3C agree with RFC 3205? > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/16 > > people are talking about a new mailing list... BOF deadlines... etc. > > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > > >
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 19:56:15 UTC