Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building Protocols with HTTP

tools.ietf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 55 posts

Re: Building Protocols with HTTP

#4

Post by tptacek »

ForHackernews wrote: post #2

I really wish people would stop trying to cram everything into an HTTP-shaped box.

You can wish that all you want, but it isn't going to happen. HTTP is an extremely effective way to deploy new protocols; it is effectively the richest protocol design toolkit available universally to developers, and has the added benefit of playing well with middleboxes. Expect more "cramming" in the future, not less.

Re: Building Protocols with HTTP

#6

Post by tptacek »

There is some pretty dubious and I think wishful stuff in here, like "applications should align their usage closely as possible with web browsers", or the idea that ad-hoc protocols specified over HTTP should use links rather than fixed URLs. Does anyone have the backstory on this I-D? Anybody can write one, right?

Re: Building Protocols with HTTP

#7

Post by figgis »

sp4c3m0nk3y wrote: post #3
ForHackernews wrote: post #2

I really wish people would stop trying to cram everything into an HTTP-shaped box.

I agree. What is wrong with creating new protocols?

Familiarity. I can either work with a protocol that has been around, in some way shape or form, for almost 30 years. That has matured, has a myriad of information relating to edge cases, is familiar to new and old developers, and is quick to develop for.

Or I can create my own protocol which has none of those benefits besides possibly quick development.

Re: Building Protocols with HTTP

#8

Post by totalthrowaway »

tptacek wrote: post #6

There is some pretty dubious and I think wishful stuff in here, like "applications should align their usage closely as possible with web browsers", or the idea that ad-hoc protocols specified over HTTP should use links rather than fixed URLs. Does anyone have the backstory on this I-D? Anybody can write one, right?

He's not quite anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Nottingham

Perhaps this is meant as a public service, just to gather best practices. If you want to build your own thing, please go ahead, but don't call it HTTP.

Re: Building Protocols with HTTP

#9

Post by tptacek »

totalthrowaway wrote: post #8
tptacek wrote: post #6

There is some pretty dubious and I think wishful stuff in here, like "applications should align their usage closely as possible with web browsers", or the idea that ad-hoc protocols specified over HTTP should use links rather than fixed URLs. Does anyone have the backstory on this I-D? Anybody can write one, right?

He's not quite anyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Nottingham Perhaps this is meant as a public service, just to gather best practices. If you want to build your own thing, please go ahead, but don't call it HTTP.

Fair enough, re Nottingham. Thanks for the link, that neatly answers my question.

I strongly disagree that ignoring these suggested BCPs disqualifies an application as "HTTP". As far as I'm concerned, if a typical middlebox will reliably pass messages in it, it's HTTP.

Re: Building Protocols with HTTP

#10

Post by m0llusk »

tptacek wrote: post #6

There is some pretty dubious and I think wishful stuff in here, like "applications should align their usage closely as possible with web browsers", or the idea that ad-hoc protocols specified over HTTP should use links rather than fixed URLs. Does anyone have the backstory on this I-D? Anybody can write one, right?

HTTP was intended to support web browsers, so there may be value in keeping compatibility. Application development, debugging, and scripting can all potentially be well served by having standard HTTP interfaces for interactions because this enables application operations to be performed or spoofed using web browsers.
Post reply on HN