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 14:14:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeFWMYrtxRKRHrvgqNN1gCP2UMdbBoL6TyoN3uEVM7m1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In my mind, we have a framing layer and a semantic layer.
-=R


On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> On 28/02/2013, at 9:06 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
>
> Yes, good point. We're already seeing the effect of this blurriness in
> terms of what people consider the "framing layer."
>
> To me, EVERYTHING about mapping HTTP-specific semantics is in the "HTTP"
> section; everything that's generic -- which includes streams and stream
> management -- is "below" on the framing "layer."
>
> I'm OK if we choose to use "HTTP/2.0 Framing" and stick with it -- it's
> just that it's used inconsistently now. However, this may not be the best
> name, because it has "HTTP/2.0" in it, and then we go and talk about using
> HTTP/2.0 *on* it. OTOH I'm not thrilled about introducing Yet Another
> Acronym...
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 22:14:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2013 22:14:49 GMT