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 11:07:59 +0000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1956.1327748879@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <4F23D30C.1040406@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes:
>On 2012-01-28 11:45, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>Organization aside the question is whether things like methods, payload 
>formats, and status codes are integral parts of HTTP/2.0. I think they are.

I think they are not:  They are what is being transported, and
good transportation does not interfere with the goods being transported.

>I *agree* with improving the layering, and maybe giving the transport 
>layer a specific name, but "HTTP/2.0" it can't be.

I'm going to point you at that annoying 'T' and ask you what the
heck else HTTP/2.0 would be doing, but transporting ? :-)

That said, I don't particularly care about what the document or
protocol is called, because it has no user-visible impact if we do
our job right.

In fact, we can probably avoid a LOT of idle spin-cycles in the
"IT-press" by not naming anything "HTTP/2.0", ever.

Is "WTP" already taken ? 

... by anybody we care about ? :-)

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 11:08:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:00 UTC