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

Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:19:25 +0100
Message-ID: <4F23D9BD.8030708@gmx.de>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-01-28 12:07, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> 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.

HTTP == "Hypertext *Transfer* Protocol".

>> 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 ? :-)

See above. It would be only about transport we wouldn't have things like 
DELETE, PATCH, nor status codes like 307.

> 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 ? :-)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 28 January 2012 11:20:11 UTC

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