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

Re: Giving the Framing Layer a real name

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:51:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcgQExR0mheLSE+D5Vo_B66oPBQfPhtszv3=icDuyGGYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Then you can't do websockets, etc or whatever other protocol (maybe video?,
who knows) the web platform decides to do in the future on the same

That would be a poor tradeoff.. and for what gain?
What is the additional complexity of having the framing allow for non HTTP

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:13 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
> On Feb 27, 2013 10:03 AM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 27 February 2013 00:49, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote:
>> > My vote would be to nuke the layering and instead fold section 4 (the
>> > 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.
>> I said as much to mark in private: the framing layer is for HTTP.  A
>> name implies that it might stand alone.  That's not going to be true.
>> The work to make it true is not worthwhile either.
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 18:52:06 UTC

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