[p2p-hackers] Tighter HTTP and P2P integration??

[Greg Bildson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: p2p-hackers-bounces at zgp.org [mailto:p2p-hackers-bounces at zgp.org]On
> Behalf Of Charles Iliya Krempeaux
>
> A "P2P conditional get" (sent by the client) would tell the server NOT
> to send the requested document if there is an alternative way of
> getting the document via a P2P technology supported by the client.
> (The client would tell the server which P2P technologies it supports.)
>  (This "P2P conditional get" would work similar to the "If-None-Match"
> and "If-Modified-Since" "conditional get" headers.).
>
> For example, it might be something like:
>
>     X-If-No-Alternate: bittorrent, something-else, magnet
>
> First, this says that the client supports the protocols: "bittorrent",
> "something-else", and "magnet".  It also says it prefers "bittorrent"
> first, then "something-else", and then "magnet".


Are these hypothetical options for future web browsers?  I take it that
there would be no way to make a current browser actually communicate what
the computer it's running on supports in this way right now?

>
> The server might then respond with an "HTTP 302" (Found) and then
> redirect the user to a P2P version using a URI for the P2P technology.
>  This "redirect" would be done via the HTTP "Location" header.  For
> example:
>
>     HTTP/1.1 302 Found
>     Location: magnet:?xt=urn:sha1:WRCIRZV5ZO56CWMNHFV4FRGNPWPPDVKT

For what it's worth, a Location redirect will trigger magnet handling.  We
do something similar now with javascript.

I wish magnets embedded in emails worked so easily.

Thanks
-greg