- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:45:27 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <4F23CF65.6030605@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes: >I do agree that whatever is done better get the layering right. My >conclusion although is different: calling something HTTP/2.0 which >doesn't roughly address the same use cases would be totally confusing. As "totally confusing" as HTTP/1.1(bis) ? :-) I don't think we have a choice in practice. Either we chop this monster into bites we can understand or chew, or we're wasting our time on a long interminable death-march towards IPv6 adoption. In terms of practical standards documents, a HTTP/2.0 RFC could have a section which simply point back into HTTP/1.1bis and say "Use these bits to interpret and understand the content+metadata parts". If/when later, the content+metadata part gets cleaned up in dedicated RFCs, those RFC's will refer directly to the HTTP/2.0 RFC, less that section. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Saturday, 28 January 2012 10:45:57 UTC