W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Not UDP? Re: Proposed HTML ping attribute

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:37:20 +1100
Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <0D1D381D-924C-40C4-BE87-3766F0894319@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>

... and it would require an upgrade in the infrastructure where  
proxies and firewalls are used.

On 16/01/2008, at 3:09 PM, Mark Baker wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> On 1/15/08, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote:
>> Presumably it has been discussed why UDP should not be used?
>> It would seem to have the right characteristics.
>> It would have less load on the net, by many times.
>> And dramatically reduce time, buffer space etc for all parties.
>> And it could be filtered out as a luxury on links under abnormal  
>> stress.
>> Anyone got a pointer to the reasons? why not?
> UDP is a possible transport, sure, but it alone doesn't address the
> problem because it prescribes no application semantics. i.e. you can
> have datagram based messages with either GET or POST semantics.
> Mark.
> -- 
> Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.         http://www.markbaker.ca
> Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com

Mark Nottingham       mnot@yahoo-inc.com
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 05:37:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:19 UTC