8 ms·
This is a different propopsal than the IETF draft by Donovon Preston, which is knows as "Reverse HTTP". This is apparently "ReverseHTTP" and the specification
by TimothyFitz 18y ago
This is a different propopsal than the IETF draft by Donovon Preston, which is knows as "Reverse HTTP".
This is apparently "ReverseHTTP" and the specification looks about twenty times longer, needlessly. I'd love to hear any good reasons why I should use this "ReverseHTTP" instead of long-polling or Reverse HTTP... the IETF draft
- tonyg 18y agoIt's very similar to Lentzcner & Preston's I-D, yes. We both seem to have independently invented the same general idea and chosen the same obvious name. The differences are the use of a ReSTful protocol, and more elaboration of the registration/name-management aspects. And of course that I haven't submitted it as an I-D :-) My current draft is far too long, I agree; it describes not only the use of HTTP to retrieve requests (which is equivalent to Donovan Preston's idea), but also the interactions and headers needed to manage the tunnelled service. That latter is something that Lentzcner & Preston haven't addressed yet, I think.