- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:07:59 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <4F23D30C.1040406@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes: >On 2012-01-28 11:45, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >Organization aside the question is whether things like methods, payload >formats, and status codes are integral parts of HTTP/2.0. I think they are. I think they are not: They are what is being transported, and good transportation does not interfere with the goods being transported. >I *agree* with improving the layering, and maybe giving the transport >layer a specific name, but "HTTP/2.0" it can't be. I'm going to point you at that annoying 'T' and ask you what the heck else HTTP/2.0 would be doing, but transporting ? :-) That said, I don't particularly care about what the document or protocol is called, because it has no user-visible impact if we do our job right. In fact, we can probably avoid a LOT of idle spin-cycles in the "IT-press" by not naming anything "HTTP/2.0", ever. Is "WTP" already taken ? ... by anybody we care about ? :-) -- 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 11:08:27 UTC