From: jg(_at_)pa(_dot_)dec(_dot_)com
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:22:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: Pachyderm (client pachyderm.pa-x.dec.com, user jg)
To: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian(_at_)hursley(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>, Mark Baker
<distobj(_at_)acm(_dot_)org>,
John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson(_at_)uk(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>,
Discuss Apps <discuss(_at_)apps(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org>, Richard P King
<rpk(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: Requirements for reliable message delivery
List-Owner: <mailto:discuss-request(_at_)apps(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss(_at_)apps(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org>
List-Unsubscribe:
<mailto:discuss-request(_at_)apps(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org?Subject=unsubscribe>
The real world will continue to make progress using crocks (like random
messaging on top of HTTP), until there is a viable alternative.
Is the IETF a place to develop such an alternative? Unfortunately, I
doubt it, given my experience. It seems to have such vision at the low
level packet level, but it seems that too few people who build applications
hang out there, so at most, the IETF might bless such an alternative if
and when one comes along... To date, the IETF has at most been able to
deal with applications protocols for a single application, and not for
generic protocol frameworks, on which thousands of apps can be built.
(Un)fortunately, the alternatives out there are pretty dismal,
so until such a viable application protocol framework appears,
I believe we are condemned to the current state (or to .net).
- Jim
- Jim
--
Jim Gettys
Cambridge Research Laboratory
Compaq Computer Corporation
jg(_at_)pa(_dot_)dec(_dot_)com
Michael W. Condry
Director, Network Edge Technology