- From: Paul Rarey <Paul.Rarey@systems.dhl.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 09:26:59 -0800
- To: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>, uri@bunyip.com
- Cc: kball@kballuw.sjf.novell.com
On Feb 1, 5:21, Jon P. Knight wrote: > Subject: HTTP URL to support multiple naming services }Why don't you just define a new method such as nhtp: that is designed to }work over IPX? Surely hacking in multiple transports into the existing }URLs is a bad idea as you'll just have to do it all over again when you }move to IP:ng along with the rest of us (you are moving right? :-) ). And Well.... The whole purpose of naming schemes is that they add a layer of abstraction from transports. Transports add a layer of abstraction from network protocols, net protocols add a layer of abstraction from media protocols (ether, FDDI etc.). Although I haven't digested the IPng papers, I believe it is a safe bet that application(s - or application protocols such as hppt, smtp etc.) will not have to change in their use of TCP in order for IPng to be the encapsulating network layer protocol). }not to mention that there's more to the WWW than HTTP; are you planning on }coming up with IPX versions of FTP, gopher, NNTP, etc, etc and change }those URLs as well? ...:-( }Why don't you just define a new method such as nhtp: that is designed to }work over IPX? Surely hacking in multiple transports into the existing }URLs is a bad idea as you'll just have to do it all over again when you }move to IP:ng along with the rest of us (you are moving right? :-) ). Note above.... } And }not to mention that there's more to the WWW than HTTP; are you planning on }coming up with IPX versions of FTP, gopher, NNTP, etc, etc and change }those URLs as well? I think if "IPX" is substitued with "NDS & BINDRY" this statement makes sense. }If you used a new nhtp: method to denote Novell's Hypertext Transfer }Protocol, we Internet types could just set up proxy gateways that took your I would say the proxy"ing" should be done at the Novell http/"nhtp" gateway. We "Internet types" should not have to proxy (actually gateway - ugh) such things. -- Cheers! [ psr ]
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 1995 12:24:03 UTC