[standards-jig] Pondering DTCP
dizzyd at jabber.org
Thu Dec 12 21:00:13 UTC 2002
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thursday, Dec 12, 2002, at 13:47 America/Denver, Justin Karneges
> The questions are:
> 1) DTCP has a set of requirements. Is HTTP capable of meeting them?
> 2) If so, is the extra complexity worth the flexibility?
> For #1, it is important to remember that DTCP uses a request/response
> sometimes even a request/response/ack procedure in the handshake. I
As noted previously the request/response/ack is a byproduct of blindly
creating connections -- let's not force HTTP to fit in the box called
DTCP. DTCP is not a standard and there is no reason for us to assume at
this point that we can't find a better way to do things.
> At the simplest level, my reason to avoid HTTP is that it wouldn't
> gain us
> anything (other than the ability to say we are using a standard).
> DTCP works
> very well according to the current specification.
If it works so well, why are there so many people who want to change it?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 (Build 349) Beta
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Standards