Re: Giving the Framing Layer a real name

Good point; this layering made sense when it was a protocol separate from
HTTP, but now it makes little sense.

Question - will the final HTTP/2.0 specification need to re-include all of
HTTP/1.1?  I assume not, and it will simply reference it?

My vote would be to nuke the layering and instead fold section 4 (the HTTP
Layering) into the appropriate sections of the framing layer.  Trying to
make these generic frames seems like a distraction, and it would be simpler
for folks to read if these were just the basics of HTTP framing.

Mike



On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:12 PM, 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?
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>