- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:19:25 +0100
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-01-28 12:07, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > 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. HTTP == "Hypertext *Transfer* Protocol". >> 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 ? :-) See above. It would be only about transport we wouldn't have things like DELETE, PATCH, nor status codes like 307. > 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. +1 > Is "WTP" already taken ? > > ... by anybody we care about ? :-) Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 28 January 2012 11:20:11 UTC