From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <9ac56b3938baa3accb55d587a63f662a@9srv.net>
From: a@9srv.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] HTTP tunnelling of 9P -- taboo?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Mon,  4 Nov 2002 16:38:35 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 15457386-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

the aesthetic question is easiest: good God please no! tunneling
*anything* through http is ugly, since http itself is ugly. and
taking a nice, clean, simple, powerful protocol and shoving it
into an awkward dinky protocol is always aestheticaly wrong.

technically, the issue probably isn't getting around firewalls,
but proxies. firewalls generally just allow or disallow a certain
set of ports (most, anyway). if that's indeed the issue, just run
a listener on port 80 of your server and connnect to that.

also, why would a distributed fs protocol need to be embeded in
http to be an alternative to WebDAV? why not just use 9p as is?
the drive to embed everything in http seems strange to me. is
the fact that WebDAV is a set of http "extentions" really a
selling point for most of its users? i doubt it.
ア