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

Re: Giving the Framing Layer a real name

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:03:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWsTNzSYTuSkVWTHaUMsygA+8A3aP-W+00SXd0=xrLbYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
On 27 February 2013 10:51, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> socket/session.

Not true.  Write another RFC that says how you can share the
connection with websockets.  That might have to change some of the
rules, loosen some of the constraints, add some features.

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

The cost is in building generality.  Generality in engineering is
never general enough to solve unforeseen problems, and it never ever
comes with a zero complexity cost.
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 19:03:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2013 19:03:50 GMT