W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Giving the Framing Layer a real name

From: Robert Collins <robertc@squid-cache.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:55:47 +1300
Message-ID: <CAJ3HoZ1oCReMdXr3AH5+HAY4QsfKBBWR464nrpTPuU2d0ynMMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 27 February 2013 18:12, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> I've been a bit uncomfortable with our current nomenclature for a little while.
> Right now we have:
>   - a spec called "Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2.0"
>   - ... that does " HTTP Layering over HTTP/2.0"
>   - ... onto a framing layer that we also call "HTTP/2.0"
> I'm very tempted to propose that we:
>   - Give the framing layer a distinct name. I don't care what it is.
>   - Section 4 becomes "Layering HTTP Semantics onto XXXX."
>   - "HTTP/2.0" is the name of the package of doing so -- i.e., HTTP semantics on a new framing layer.
> I think this would make our discussions somewhat less confusing, especially around things like the upgrade process, and make our documentation clearer. It would also help clarify when it's appropriate to put something in a header (HTTP stuff) vs. in the framing layer (connection-specific stuff).
> However, I recognise that naming things is hard, and I don't want this to become the bikeshed that kills us all. I'm also aware that doing so may encourage people to treat the framing layer as a substrate, but I don't see any way to avoid that, and won't mind, as long as we don't exceed our charter.
> Any concerns in doing so? Suggestions for a name?

Seems sensible to me.
HTTPT ? [Though the transport protocol transport at the end is a bit ick].

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 05:56:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:10 UTC