Re: "RHTTP and overview of other approaches" at IETF apparea meeting (HTTPSubstrate ISSUE-16)

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-AndrĂ©, 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 19:56:16 UTC