On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Julian Leviston <[email protected]>wrote:
> I guess my question is... what's stopping an alternative, replacement, backwardly-compatible protocol from taking over where http and https leave off? HTTP and HTTPS are not very good protocols if your goals relate to low-latency, security, and composition. And what would that protocol do? Here's what the protocol I'm working on would do: * chord/pastry/tapestry distributed replacement for DNS (free us from ICANN; easier configuration) * identifiers for hosts = secure hash of RSA public key (easy validation, ortho. to trust) * logical connections (easier composition, independent disruption, potential 'restore' and use cache) * logical objects - flat, usually opaque object identifier (favor object capability security idioms) * extensible protocol (just add objects); supports new overlays and network abstractions. * efficient orchestration; forward responses multiple steps without centralized routing * wait-free idioms, i.e. 'install' a new object then start using it - new object references created locally * reactive behaviors: focus on models involving continuous queries or control. * batching semantics - send multiple updates then 'apply' all at once. * temporal semantics - send updates that apply in future. One of the issues is surely the way our router-system structure is in > place... if there was going to be a replacement for the web, it would *have* > to end up being properly web based (down to the packet level) I think if we replaced the protocols for the web, we'd still call it 'the web', and it would therefore still be 'web-based'. ;-) But we don't need to follow the same protocols we currently do. > > I simply hate the fact that if three people in my house request the front > page of the financial times, our computers all have to go get it separately. > Why don't the other two get it off the first one, or at the very least, off > the router? > You're rather stingy with bandwidth. Maybe you should try a Squid server. ;-) Support for ad-hoc content distribution networks is designed into my reactive demand programming model. > > We don't even have languages of intention - just languages of > implementation. We're left to "abstract out" the intention from reading the > implementation. > Have you ever used an executable specification language (such as Maude or Coq)? Regards, Dave
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
