Re: Giving the Framing Layer a real name

HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) over HTFP (Hypertext Framing Protocol)?

I think these two names are distinct and clear, but obviously related.


On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>wrote:

> On 27/02/2013 6:55 p.m., Robert Collins wrote:
>
>> On 27 February 2013 18:12, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been a bit uncomfortable with our current nomenclature for a little
>>> while.
>>>
>>> Right now we have:
>>>    - a spec called "Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2.0"
>>>    - ... that does " HTTP Layering over HTTP/2.0"
>>>    - ... onto a framing layer that we also call "HTTP/2.0"
>>>
>>> I'm very tempted to propose that we:
>>>    - Give the framing layer a distinct name. I don't care what it is.
>>>    - Section 4 becomes "Layering HTTP Semantics onto XXXX."
>>>    - "HTTP/2.0" is the name of the package of doing so -- i.e., HTTP
>>> semantics on a new framing layer.
>>>
>>> I think this would make our discussions somewhat less confusing,
>>> especially around things like the upgrade process, and make our
>>> documentation clearer. It would also help clarify when it's appropriate to
>>> put something in a header (HTTP stuff) vs. in the framing layer
>>> (connection-specific stuff).
>>>
>>> However, I recognise that naming things is hard, and I don't want this
>>> to become the bikeshed that kills us all. I'm also aware that doing so may
>>> encourage people to treat the framing layer as a substrate, but I don't see
>>> any way to avoid that, and won't mind, as long as we don't exceed our
>>> charter.
>>>
>>> Any concerns in doing so? Suggestions for a name?
>>>
>> Seems sensible to me.
>> HTTPT ? [Though the transport protocol transport at the end is a bit ick].
>> HTTPF?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
> WFP ?  (Web Frames Protocol)
>
> WTF ?  (Web Transport Framing / Frames)
>
>
> Amos
>
>