- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:14:16 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeFWMYrtxRKRHrvgqNN1gCP2UMdbBoL6TyoN3uEVM7m1Q@mail.gmail.com>
In my mind, we have a framing layer and a semantic layer. -=R On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > On 28/02/2013, at 9:06 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On 27 February 2013 13:59, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > >> To me, a distinct name of a major, separable part of a protocol is only > good spec hygiene; in HTTP we already have "representations" (nee > "entities"), "resources" and so forth. They allow people to talk about > different things that are happening with clarity; right now, people are > using the term "HTTP/2.0" very, very sloppily, and that's a concern. "It > means what I mean" is not a great basis for communication. > > > > I don't agree that it's separable in any real sense, which has been > > the source of the contention. However, I appreciate the value of a > > handle by which we can identify important "things". I always imagined > > that in the few places it was necessary to refer to the concept, > > "HTTP/2.0 framing" or "HTTP/2.0 framing layer" would suffice. > > > > That depends on the scope of what you are referring to, which is - I > > believe - an important part of what we need to clarify. Does this > > include the creation and use of streams as well as the use of frames > > to convey data? > > > Yes, good point. We're already seeing the effect of this blurriness in > terms of what people consider the "framing layer." > > To me, EVERYTHING about mapping HTTP-specific semantics is in the "HTTP" > section; everything that's generic -- which includes streams and stream > management -- is "below" on the framing "layer." > > I'm OK if we choose to use "HTTP/2.0 Framing" and stick with it -- it's > just that it's used inconsistently now. However, this may not be the best > name, because it has "HTTP/2.0" in it, and then we go and talk about using > HTTP/2.0 *on* it. OTOH I'm not thrilled about introducing Yet Another > Acronym... > > Cheers, > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 22:14:46 UTC