Re: [tae] [tsv-area] Transport negotiation

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Leslie wrote:
> Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Similarly, though http is expected to live over TCP, being able to  
>> explicitly override it in the URI if desired has merit in some cases.  
>> That is, 'http' would be the same as writing 'http-tcp'.
> 
>    Given that there's existing work for http over sctp, and that sometimes
> ambiguity is intentional and can be a good thing, I'd recommend that
> plain 'http' be allowed to continue whatever ambiguity it already has,

The ambiguity is that some people think "http" has ambiguity, and others
do not; it's insufficient to assume that there's agreement on this, thus
that it's clear exactly what needs a new name.

Sec 3.2.2 of RFC2616 appears to indicate that TCP is assumed, i.e., that
it's not up in the air. Elsewhere it's noted that HTTP can run over any
reliable transport, but 3.2.2 indicates fairly directly what http: means.

AFAICT, there *only* ambiguity in URIs is in the network protocol when
specified by a DNS name (and even that causes substantial grief).

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkk9jgMACgkQE5f5cImnZrvR3QCgzzTt+dxZNjWPeSRm1NiEyzi8
oIkAoPuO51GwBcDx4Tj6ZWdmaRB+vKXz
=jEhj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tae mailing list
tae@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tae