W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:45:27 +0000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1839.1327747527@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <4F23CF65.6030605@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes:

>I do agree that whatever is done better get the layering right. My 
>conclusion although is different: calling something HTTP/2.0 which 
>doesn't roughly address the same use cases would be totally confusing.

As "totally confusing" as HTTP/1.1(bis) ?  :-)

I don't think we have a choice in practice.

Either we chop this monster into bites we can understand or chew,
or we're wasting our time on a long interminable death-march towards
IPv6 adoption.

In terms of practical standards documents, a HTTP/2.0 RFC could
have a section which simply point back into HTTP/1.1bis and say
"Use these bits to interpret and understand the content+metadata
parts".  If/when later, the content+metadata part gets cleaned up
in dedicated RFCs, those RFC's will refer directly to the HTTP/2.0
RFC, less that section.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Saturday, 28 January 2012 10:45:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:53 GMT