• To: "Al B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• Subject: RE: Generality of HTTP
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 23 Jan 2002 11:11:09 -0500
• Cc: The Deviants <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0201231447590.11412-100000@l...>
• References: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0201231447590.11412-100000@l...>

On Wed, 2002-01-23 at 09:57, Al B. Snell wrote:
> Although proper use of HTTP/1.1 will spread the overhead of connection
> setup and teardown, HTTP/1.1 is a relatively complex protocol to implement
> and there is still the issue of the seperate acks of request and response
> as opposed to piggybacking them with the data transfers as UDP-based
> protocols do.

And HTTP 1.1 has lots of parts I don't consider remotely necessary for
client-server work.  It might be interesting to take close look at HTTP
as a likely candidate for subsetting.  GET, POST, a few headers.

Won't get rid of TCP's overhead, but it could simplify some kinds of
processing without leaping to an entirely new spec.

On the other hand, I do like BEEP a lot.  (It also uses TCP.)

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Generality of HTTP
    • From: "Al B. Snell" <alaric@a...>

• References:
  • RE: Generality of HTTP
    • From: "Al B. Snell" <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Generality of HTTP
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Flexible Schemas (was RE: The tasktobe solved by RDDL)
• Previous by thread: RE: Generality of HTTP
• Next by thread: RE: Generality of HTTP
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread