On 9/6/06, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Robert> On 9/5/06, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf