ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: 'Procedures for protocol extensions and variations' to BCP (draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions)

2006-09-06 07:16:17
On 9/6/06, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Sayre <sayrer(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:

    Robert> On 9/5/06, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
    >>  I want to be able to give you a URL and have you resolve it.
    >> That only works if we speak the same transport protocol.

    Robert> Disagree. The Internet is pretty compelling, so proxies
    Robert> can and do bridge transport protocols. Applications using
    Robert> the HTTP stack don't need to know or care about the lower
    Robert> level.

I wouldn't mind writing the language in such a way that this
requirement could be met by proxies.

I'm not sure what you want to write. Frankly, it seems like you're
asking for a blank check. Changing the definition of interoperability
seems pretty serious. It looks like a subject for a 2026 successor
produced by a WG, not a rider on Brian's extensions draft.

I don't see how to do that as an
implementation requirement though--and deployment requirements about
supporting the same transport would be completely inappropriate for
the IETF to make for HTTP.

Yeah, there are lots of issues like that.

--

Robert Sayre

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>