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

Re: Adjusting our spec names

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:24:09 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "<ietf-http-wg@w3.org> Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120331102409.GV14039@1wt.eu>
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:11:44PM +0200, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Our current products are named:
> 
> HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing
> HTTP/1.1, part 2: Message Semantics
> HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation
> HTTP/1.1, part 4: Conditional Requests
> HTTP/1.1, part 5: Range Requests and Partial Responses
> HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching
> HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication
> 
> Note that many of the latter mechanisms are NOT specific to HTTP/1.1; i.e., they will work in an HTTP/1.0 message, and also (according to our charter) must work in a HTTP/2.0 message.
> 
> Therefore, I'm inclined to rename them, leading to something like:
> 
> HTTP/1.1 Message Format and Connections
> HTTP Core Semantics  (combined p2 and p3, which the editors are currently undertaking)
> HTTP Conditional Requests
> HTTP Range Requests and Partial Responses
> HTTP Caching
> HTTP Authentication Framework
> 
> Thoughts? This doesn't (yet) account for the discussed p0.

I've mixed opinions on this. I agree with having p1 become 1.1 specific.
However there might be changes that are worth applying to other parts for
HTTP/2.0 to improve reliability/speed/security and which can still be
mapped 1-to-1 to HTTP/1.1. Some examples include date formats, and
handling of field value lists which are worth changing in 2.0 in my
opinion and which do not imply a change of semantics although being
documented in P2. It's very likely that the caching guys have
suggestions on cache/ranges/conditions.

In the end, why not name everything 1.1 in order to avoid later confusion
if we fix even very minor things in 2.0 ?

Just my two cents,
Willy
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2012 10:24:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:57 GMT