Re: [EME] Re: transport recovery at the APP layer ?

On 11/17/06, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> > While it's certainly true that applications are free to attribute
> > application layer semantics to transport layer signals (e.g. HTTP
> > 1.0), it is not the case that all applications do so (e.g. HTTP 1.1).
>
> If you're referring to persistent connections, that predated 1.1 as an
> add-on to 1.0 (though not in the base 1.0).

I was referring to how HTTP 1.0 responses were framed, specifically
the last sentence of this paragraph from sec 7.2.2 of RFC 1945;

   When an Entity-Body is included with a message, the length of that
   body may be determined in one of two ways. If a Content-Length header
   field is present, its value in bytes represents the length of the
   Entity-Body. Otherwise, the body length is determined by the closing
   of the connection by the server.

... which is a layering problem that HTTP 1.1 fixed by mandating
persistent connections.

> HTTP isn't the only application around, as you note. Unless this RG is
> focused on HTTP interactions with middleboxes, it needs to consider the
> impact on all applications.

I'm glad to hear you say that, because IMO, doing so requires keeping
our layers layered and not assuming application semantics to TCP
signals.

Cheers,

Mark.

_______________________________________________
EME mailing list
EME@irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eme