In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)62(_dot_)0507260917350(_dot_)7476(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>
"william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> writes:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 domainkeys-feedbackbase02(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com wrote:
--- "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
q=xkms
Ahhh. So we're talking about heavy-weight key fetching alternatives.
What are your reasons for considering HTTP to be heavy-weight protocol?
I dunno about Mike, but I consider HTTP to be heavy-weight because an
HTTP GET transaction will likely be as costly in terms of both
bandwidth and latency as an SMTP transaction.
I also think that there will be resistance by many mail admins and MTA
authors to adding in complete support for HTTP on their mail boxes.
And, yeah, I expect that if you are going to allow HTTP, you will need
to do fairly complete HTTP support because people *will* expect things
like redirects to work.
Do you also consider SMTP or LDAP to be heavy-weight?
That depends on the context. Many people also consider SMTP
call-backs for SMTP transactions to be too heavy-weight.
-wayne