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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 9/6/06, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Of course it's useful to be able to run SMTP, HTTP, etc. over other
transports for special purposes.  But a distinction needs to be made
between "SMTP specification" and "how to send Internet email", and
between "HTTP specification" and "how to make web resources available
to the public and how to access them".

I don't think we disagree, and both specs say "usually over TCP" anyway.

However the utility of many applications is dependent on there being
a large number of servers that arbitrary clients can talk to, and in
those cases too many degrees of freedom regarding which stack to use
degrades interoperability.

The IETF doesn't have the ability to remove any degrees of freedom.
The IETF can increase the number of dependencies to the point that
there will be lots HTTP-Over-Foo specs, and lots of duplication (and
variation in non-transport areas). The IETF can also provide
compelling solutions like TCP/IP so that most implementers never
consider anything else.

I suppose I would phrase "too many degrees of freedom" as "nothing but
poor standards". Provide an adequate solution that's simple enough to
be ubiquitous and you get critical mass.

--

Robert Sayre

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]