Lloyd Wood wrote: > How does this compare to BEEP? From my quick look: + It's simpler than beep in channel management + It's addresses the header compactness issues + It is definitely bound to uber-http semantics, while beep is more general purpose (but could have a http binding defined). But in concept, it is not too far apart. It's using the same grab bag of techniques (multiplexed channels with fragmentation and orderly channel management) that Beep uses (and BWTP is advocating). cheers > On 12 Nov 2009, at 22:05, Greg Wilkins wrote: > >> FYI Google have announced some work they are doing on a HTTP improvement >> >> http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper >> >> >> It appears to capture many of the same ideas I was attempting to with BWTP - but >> they are binary encoded and have working code :) >> >> cheers >> _______________________________________________ >> hybi mailing list >> hybi at ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi > > DTN work: http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/saratoga/ > > <http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk> > > > > > >
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.