RE: httpy:// Mark S. Miller (markm@caplet.com)
Sat, 13 May 2000 19:02:08 -0700

At 09:26 AM 5/13/00 , Tyler Close wrote:
>Mark, I remember you doing something with IANA to register pluribus. I
>remember this gave pluribus its port number, did it also give it the
>'cap' protocol identifier? What would I do if I wanted the 'httpy'
>name?

No sorry. I just requested & got a port number (3469). I never requested "cap:" or any other protocol identifier, so I don't know.

I would like to merge proposals. Since you've already figured out how to get the SwissNumber aspect of a cap: URI into an https: URL, and since your httpy: proposal would take care of the VLS/VatID side as well, I don't see any reason why Droplets and E couldn't agree in the same httpy: URI format.

There would then be the matter of the handshake: Is the designated object an E object responding to Pluribus requests or a Droplets object responding to CGI queries? However, rather than encoding this in the URI (cap: vs httpy:), I'd rather find a way to do run-time negotiation that's a) compatible with both of our constraints, and b) facilitates our future message-level interoperability.

Speaking of which, in an earlier message you proposed to create an XML encoding of E parse trees. As you can tell from recent traffic, this is more relevant now than ever. Anytime you have a mapping to propose...

         Cheers,
         --MarkM