- From: Kevin Cathcart <kevincathcart@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:46:37 +0000
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
I'm not really sure why everybody is getting so worked up about SPDY. The correct thing to do is pretty obvious to me. Document the core HTTP protocol in a message format agnostic way. This means not specifying the format of the messages or the transport. Instead the core HTTP spec would be defined in terms of two types of abstract messages. One is a request message, which includes the following components: a version number, a resource URI, a method, headers, and an optional body. The other message is a response, which includes a version, a status code, a status phrase, headers, and an optional body. The core spec would then define the meaning of the methods and headers, the rules regarding proxies and caching, and the authentication rules, etc. Basically everything that would apply to all message/transport formats. Separate specifications would define message/transport formats. Headers that are specific to the textual Internet Message message/transport format currently used in HTTP/1.1 would not be included in the core specification but would be part of a separate specification that would define the textual format for HTTP 2.0 (unless of course we decide not to support such a format for HTTP 2.0). SPDY could pretty trivially be such a message/transport format, requiring only slight tweaks to its specification like specifying that it presents its ":host" pseduo-header to as a Host header in the abstract message. Similarly we could define a S+M based message/transport format, or perhaps even a hybrid of the the two, whatever is deemed best. Kevin Cathcart
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 15:36:54 UTC