To:
Maynard Kang <maynard@i-email.net>
cc:
William Tan <william.tan@i-dns.net>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Peter Chow <peter@interq.or.jp>
Date:
Tue, 27 Mar 2001 01:54:25 +0900 (JST)
In-Reply-To:
<001701c0b611$d33d19b0$0200000a@maynardibm>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: HTTP Transport? (was: Re: Security Design Team)
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------