Very cool! Do you have a URI? (I'd rather bookmark or store the URI than the
whole thing.)
...
> Science proves a blind alley, though. Their fates were decided not on
> technical merits, but on economic and psychological advantages. The
> 'Postellian' school of protocol design focused on engineering 'right'
> solutions for core applications (batch file transfer, interactive
> terminals, mail and news relays) anchored in unique transport layer
> adaptations (slow-start, Nagle timers, and routing as respective
> examples). Our two specimens are 'post-Postel', in their details and
> in their adoption dynamics. They are stateless; they don't have
> (Gopher) or dilute (HTTP) the theory of reply codes; they scale
> poorly, imperiling the health of the Internet; and they are 'luxuries'
> for publishing discretionary information, not Host Requirements which
> must be compiled into every node.
There's some neat design philosophy ideas in here -- I suspect there is a
useful ontology --- but its a confusing exposition. What does "right" core
solutions mean? Who wouldn't advocate that? What is a "unique" transport
layer? I'd read this as specific to the application, but in parenthesis you
mention characteristics which makes me think my reading is incorrect.
Post-postel throws me. Is the statelessness of HTTP counter to "right"
solution, the unique transport layer, in details or adoption dynamics?
_______________________
Regards, http://web.mit.edu/reagle/www/home.html
Joseph Reagle E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E
independent research account