• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: RE: Generality of HTTP
• From: "Al B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:15:25 +0000 (GMT)
• Cc: The Deviants <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <1011802270.1480.198.camel@l...>

On 23 Jan 2002, Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> And HTTP 1.1 has lots of parts I don't consider remotely necessary for
> client-server work.

At least they're generally optional, though.

> 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.

But consider this - HTTP over UDP:

http://research.sun.com/techrep/1999/abstract-71.html

To summarise, the client tries UDP first. If it gets no response or an
error (the server is a normal TCP-only HTTP server), it then tries again
with TCP. If the server supports UDP and the response is only a few Kb, it
replies with UDP, otherwise it just sends back the headers and a flag
telling the client to use TCP to get the body.

GET requests are perfect for UDP - just retransmit a few times if nothing
happens, since it doesn't matter if they get repeated.

ABS

-- 
                               Alaric B. Snell
 http://www.alaric-snell.com/  http://RFC.net/  http://www.warhead.org.uk/
   Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Generality of HTTP
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • RE: Generality of HTTP
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: RDDL -- How would you design it?
• Next by Date: RE: Draft US gov't XML Developer's Guide
• Previous by thread: RE: Generality of HTTP
• Next by thread: RE: Generality of HTTP
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread