> Furthermore, I think you're overglorifying the IETF protocol stack. I mean, > if it were truly as great as you say it is, why do all the most innovative > products avoid it like the plague? Perhaps the problem lies closer to home > than they'd like to admit.
Yep. The HTTP/1.0 RFC1945 is dated May 1996 and is based on existing widely deployed implementations already in use for several years. By that point it was too late. The HTTP/1.1 standard was a best effort attempt to address the major scaling and performance and ill-defined issues that HTTP/1.0 was suffering from because for better or worse (definately worse) the HTTP protocol "design" was going to be with us forever. I see the point that reusing HTTP always sounds like it could make deployment easier but since a p2p protocol necessarily requires additional software for a node to participate in the first place there is no major difference in having such software handle its own bind/listen/accept/connect socket calls vs having it interface thru a different API to a random web server potentially not designed for its long-term bidirectional communications. -greg _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
