IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HTTP Transport? (was: Re: Security Design Team)

Peter Chow <peter@interq.or.jp> Mon, 26 March 2001 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Received: by nic.cafax.se (8.12.0.Beta6/8.12.0.Beta5) id f2QGsmBx017343 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 18:54:48 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from tom.interq.or.jp (tom.interq.or.jp [210.172.128.229]) by nic.cafax.se (8.12.0.Beta5/8.12.0.Beta5) with ESMTP id f2QGskiM017338 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 18:54:47 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from imap.interq.or.jp (dosdan@imap.interq [210.157.0.31]) by tom.interq.or.jp with ESMTP id f2QGsRx18892; ) Tue, 27 Mar 2001 01:54:27 +0900 (JST)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 01:54:25 +0900
From: Peter Chow <peter@interq.or.jp>
To: Maynard Kang <maynard@i-email.net>
cc: William Tan <william.tan@i-dns.net>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: HTTP Transport? (was: Re: Security Design Team)
In-Reply-To: <001701c0b611$d33d19b0$0200000a@maynardibm>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.4.30.0103270153340.23468-100000@imap.interq.or.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Precedence: bulk

You should take a look at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mrose-beep-design-02.txt
which talks about the design principles behind BEEP.  It talks about
HTTP so it might answer your question.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Maynard Kang wrote:

> William Tan wrote:
> > I do not see any technical advantage over TCP that HTTP provides, in this
> > context anyway.
> >
> > wil.
>
> Actually I don't think you can compare TCP and HTTP just like that. They
> are transport methods at different layers (HTTP is TCP based in any case).
>
> You'll have to compare HTTP with some "undefined or new TCP-based
> application-layer transport protocol" for a fair comparison.. and I think
> that HTTP would be advantageous because of the huge installed base of HTTP
> implementations and the fairly mature state of the protocol.
>
> Although not entirely a technical merit, I believe this working group
> should strongly consider how to attain maximum reach for whatever it
> develops, else it may yet turn out to produce another bulky, unnecessarily
> complex, monolithic, and above all, underutilized protocol like X.400 DAP.
>
> maynard
>
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
_/_/_/ Peter Chow		Chief Technical Advisor
_/_/_/ peter@interq.ad.jp	interQ Inc. - System Division
_/_/_/ ICQ: 41931890		Shibuya Infoss Tower 10F
_/_/_/ (tel)+81-3-5456-2555	20-1 Sakuragaoka, Shibuya-ku
_/_/_/ (fax)+81-3-5456-2556	Tokyo, Japan
_/_/_/ http://www.interq.ad.jp/	150-0031
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email