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

Re: Giving the Framing Layer a real name

From: Yehia El-khatib <elkhatib@comp.lancs.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:07:13 +0000
Message-ID: <512DBEB1.1090909@comp.lancs.ac.uk>
To: Fred Akalin <akalin@google.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
HTFL (Hypertext Framing Layer)
...to avoid protocol confusion?

/Yehia


On 27/02/2013 6.48 am, Fred Akalin wrote:
> HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) over HTFP (Hypertext Framing Protocol)?
>
> I think these two names are distinct and clear, but obviously related.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz 
> <mailto:squid3@treenet.co.nz>> wrote:
>
>     On 27/02/2013 6:55 p.m., Robert Collins wrote:
>
>         On 27 February 2013 18:12, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net <mailto: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].
>         HTTPF?
>
>         -Rob
>
>
>     WFP ?  (Web Frames Protocol)
>
>     WTF ?  (Web Transport Framing / Frames)
>
>
>     Amos
>
>

-- 
Yehia Elkhatib
School of Computing&  Communications
Lancaster University
Lancaster LA1 4WA, UK
http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/~elkhatib
Follow me: http://twitter.com/yelkhatib
http://lancaster.academia.edu/YehiaElkhatib
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 08:07:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2013 08:07:47 GMT