Re: [apps-discuss] IETF-port-80 technical plenary Re: IETF technical plenary: the end of application protocols

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 22 March 2011 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE06528C0D9 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.251
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.652, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dNvhB1eLasd2 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6663A68B1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chancetrain-lm.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.52.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76DA3509ED; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:13:08 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D89023C.4090307@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:13:06 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6A625146-3094-4E61-9C35-18DA831F382A@mnot.net>
References: <4D87612E.3090900@dcrocker.net> <4D881C04.2080406@qualcomm.com> <4D89023C.4090307@thinkingcat.com>
To: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] IETF-port-80 technical plenary Re: IETF technical plenary: the end of application protocols
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:11:44 -0000

Just to this point --

On 23/03/2011, at 7:10 AM, Leslie Daigle wrote:

>  In that vein -- not all transaction models are supported in HTTP, so overlaying all applications could be expensive and ineffective.


it's important to understand that the folks pushing browser-as-a-platform see WebSockets (from our very own HYBI WG) the answer to this.

Regards,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/