IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] -09: abstract and introduction

Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> Mon, 20 June 2011 06:57 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@intalio.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E8D9E800D for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.819
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.819 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4s+oRua7Av7W for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F579E800C for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so562768vxi.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.73.130 with SMTP id l2mr3131710vdv.78.1308553034618; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.108.9 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DF91FCA.8060403@stpeter.im>
References: <4DF91FCA.8060403@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:57:14 +1000
Message-ID: <BANLkTinw1d61_wqBXg4mPHti-BhohW8SWg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] -09: abstract and introduction
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 06:57:15 -0000

On 16 June 2011 07:10, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> Section 1.1 has always struck me as strange. It sounds as if we're
> developing an IM protocol here! I suggest:
>
>   Historically, creating Web applications that need bidirectional
>   communication between a client and a server (e.g., instant messaging
>   and gaming applications) has required an abuse of HTTP to poll the
>   server for updates while sending upstream notifications as distinct
>   HTTP calls. [RFC6202]


I don't think the usage of "abuse" can be justified.   There is
nothing abusive about long polling and it is entirely legal HTTP.
Besides that is too much of a subjective reason.

How about:

  Historically, creating Web applications that need bidirectional
  communication between a client and a server (e.g., instant messaging
  and gaming applications), has required the use of HTTP to poll or long
  poll the server for updates.  Such usage of HTTP is less efficient
and responsive
  that what is possible with a TCP/IP connection.



regards

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email