[standards-jig] Pondering DTCP

Dave Smith dizzyd at jabber.org
Thu Dec 12 21:00:13 UTC 2002


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Thursday, Dec 12, 2002, at 13:47 America/Denver, Justin Karneges 
wrote:

> 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 
> and
> sometimes even a request/response/ack procedure in the handshake.  I 
> don't

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?

Diz

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 (Build 349) Beta

iQA/AwUBPfj43mDRN3IVRx7DEQJ+NwCg22M1SZn7p3dUyajpZVI+GS2GaNAAoL9h
TJ3ndEKQr5243yeyZN8X0qcF
=FuTm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




More information about the Standards mailing list