Re: [hybi] -09: abstract and introduction

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 21 June 2011 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 3423A11E8147 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ym06kt7NuwxB for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F68F11E80DB for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squire.local (dsl-179-111.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.179.111]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB483400F9; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:44:02 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4E001354.3000604@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:43:16 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
References: <4DF91FCA.8060403@stpeter.im> <BANLkTinw1d61_wqBXg4mPHti-BhohW8SWg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinw1d61_wqBXg4mPHti-BhohW8SWg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms080800020305070506000605"
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: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 03:43:28 -0000

On 6/20/11 12:57 AM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> 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.

Sure. I tried to leave as much of the current text alone in my suggestion.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/