Re: [hybi] -09: abstract and introduction

Alessandro Alinone <alessandro.alinone@lightstreamer.com> Tue, 21 June 2011 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <alessandro.alinone@lightstreamer.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 990C011E8153 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 vByASWp8C8BS for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:10:37 -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 8F7C811E8185 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so19877vxi.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lightstreamer.com; s=google; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=Vj+b+PVs4oklBJOZ5HKQgZTPKzK9VKy1DeM0sHWb9QY=; b=fPjHDfppkglZdp4zYfJNQjHh3BizNU/xrkYgvk414Dq2bevRdHaBnHQ9urJHhrwxt8 xszOEHHeDuMSG0E+Vv1TdwQLAIWgNOKlIda7zZyMGXte5VujKCjTF6moFZ4w7GpCKfR3 Rpe55QU1HlWUfYJV+8B7iW2fZ8ol9Ls3pkHJw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=lightstreamer.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=GxnbYNIm8ge5zCOhSUuqojHNZR3RTAxdzk2xiO5ShwpdYeMxXcQx7YUCBRsO/t5qAc Y3Uv4qC+h9i/MVeKBrvK7FJUsDPKaB2rkHZNzMzd9HAJKIQc4hzQDbgFvrZeEgYZuA+7 oNfTQ2ZymQs9rr+30BU2GLOnUkvOWba44Mgak=
Received: by 10.52.97.130 with SMTP id ea2mr9752637vdb.268.1308679820580; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r12sm987773vcq.36.2011.06.21.11.10.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so2758446qyk.10 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.53.82 with SMTP id l18mr4060791qcg.286.1308679819352; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.250.74 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alessandro Alinone <alessandro.alinone@lightstreamer.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:10:04 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=ZtT5jrhZNevt8j_O5T+q0A2XD3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: hybi@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175ccf1ec1da6b04a63cc3e5
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 18:10:38 -0000

Hi,

I think that limiting the historical mention to HTTP polling and long
polling is a bit restrictive. We have been using HTTP streaming
very successfully for 11 years now, in many production scenarios (via
various techniques made available in the course of history, including:
ILAYER streaming on glorious Netscape 4; FRAME streaming on other very old
browsers; IFRAME streaming on old browsers; XHR streaming on some newer
browsers). So I propose to rephrase the "Background" section including HTTP
streaming.

Thanks,

Alessandro

-- 
Alessandro Alinone
co-CEO and CTO
www.lightstreamer.com :: Weswit Srl


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

> On 16 June 2011 07:10, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at 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-Andrehttps://stpeter.im/