-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Lloyd Wood wrote: ... >>> Right. But are there more general 'HTTP over transport X' rules or >>> conventions that need to be described? >> >> I'd hope that a general decoupling would be useful, then a set of >> mappings, one for each transport. That sort of regularity hasn't been >> common - either in the IETF as a whole or in the past evolution of HTTP, >> though ;-) >> >> Are we trying to encourage them to do that, or just overseeing how it >> evolves? > > Neither. We're interested in using the result, even if we have > to describe it ourselves. Understood about who does it; the question remains as to whether we care how orthogonal the result is or whether we are focused on making sure the result just makes the right assumptions about TCP or SCTP. I would presume - as a group - the latter is the concern... Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkopWokACgkQE5f5cImnZrsrFQCePVBQ7WrxRIaVweYxjUJbYG0q PMsAnjBfHuGS3K0h7OJBN0q0XdM5033z =hi2i -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
