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 14:06:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWOuq082RX26fK_XaZn+i5_fNq6rzObkXBARNfCh2RZUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
On 27 February 2013 13:59, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> To me, a distinct name of a major, separable part of a protocol is only good spec hygiene; in HTTP we already have "representations" (nee "entities"), "resources" and so forth. They allow people to talk about different things that are happening with clarity; right now, people are using the term "HTTP/2.0" very, very sloppily, and that's a concern. "It means what I mean" is not a great basis for communication.

I don't agree that it's separable in any real sense, which has been
the source of the contention.  However, I appreciate the value of a
handle by which we can identify important "things".  I always imagined
that in the few places it was necessary to refer to the concept,
"HTTP/2.0 framing" or "HTTP/2.0 framing layer" would suffice.

That depends on the scope of what you are referring to, which is - I
believe - an important part of what we need to clarify.  Does this
include the creation and use of streams as well as the use of frames
to convey data?
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 22:06:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2013 22:06:39 GMT