RE: T is for Transfer

With regard to Mark's statement, I accept the spirit of the argument and
have no desire to start a flame war.  However, re. "T is for Transfer",
please remember that HTTP does stand for "Hyper Text *Transfer* Protocol".
It tends to be used for HTML, but that is a layer overlying HTTP - my
position is that SOAP can be layered over HTTP, with equal status to HTML,
but that HTTP does not imply either HTML or SOAP as the actual message
transferred - indeed, looking back at Mark's previous message referring to
RDF, this implies that HTTP is being used as a transport for RDF.

Pete Appleton
Information Systems Controller, Bemis Packaging Limited
pmappleton@bemis.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Hui [mailto:jhui@digisle.net]
> Sent: 28 March 2002 20:00
> To: Mark Baker; Appleton Pete M
> Cc: highland.m.mountain@intel.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: T is for Transfer
> 
> 
> This is interesting.
> 
> Mark's right that HTTP, unlike TCP or UDP, is not a transport
> protocol in an OSI or DARPA networking stack.
> 
> However, Highland's claim, as far as I can tell from the quoted text
> in Mark's message, is only that HTTP can be seen as a transport.
> I have no problem with referring to HTTP -- which itself assumes an
> underlying reliable transport protocol, say TCP, for transferring
> HTTP messages reliably -- as a transport, where HTTP message headers
> and bodies are used to carry application-level payloads.
>   
> HTTP is not a transport protocol by design; but it doesn't stop people
> from seeing it as one creatively, often for its "port-80 firewall
> friendliness."  I'd be quite comfortable to design an application
> protocol that specifies HTTP as its transport where in-band data
> (e.g. HTML content) are carried in HTTP bodies, and out-of-band
> data ( e.g. application-specific content signals) are embedded
> in HTTP extended headers.
> 
> Joe Hui
> Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
> ============================================
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 11:15 AM
> > To: Appleton Pete M
> > Cc: highland.m.mountain@intel.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: T is for Transfer
> > 
> > 
> > > Yes, I do see HTTP as being purely transport.
> > 
> > With all due respect, it doesn't matter how you see it, it 
> is *not* a
> > transport protocol.  You can use it this way, the same way I 
> > can use any
> > application protocol as a transport protocol by 
> disregarding the task
> > that the application protocol is trying to coordinate.  But 
> > that doesn't
> > make it one.
> > 
> > http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/evaluation.
> htm#sec_6_5_3
> 
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 16:58:53 UTC