IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Giving the Framing Layer a real name

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Thu, 07 March 2013 07:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9343921F8B11 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 23:21:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NYND56O2-Lqq for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 23:21:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0112721F8B08 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 23:21:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UDV80-0005CZ-JI for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 07:20:36 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 07:20:36 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UDV80-0005CZ-JI@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UDV7q-0005BN-SR for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 07:20:26 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UDV7p-0000y7-NW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 07:20:26 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r277JsUe019756; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 08:19:54 +0100
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:19:54 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Message-ID: <20130307071954.GA18562@1wt.eu>
References: <5479F0BA-C5E0-4DA0-BFA4-ECE174388C3F@mnot.net> <CABaLYCv9FdOoCooFZ4s0G4E0EHGQUEizJAGYB-BGoya7B90_9A@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUWYR_scokR6DbBoFdD3ZqYF6gWqcis94tA9mHTD0o9cQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7Rbe5CyLFjRCRUtE8ZwO+4hdDF=2iuvaPNNqqWRCBzpT+PA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNcgQExR0mheLSE+D5Vo_B66oPBQfPhtszv3=icDuyGGYw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWsTNzSYTuSkVWTHaUMsygA+8A3aP-W+00SXd0=xrLbYw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNdvK8OiF_S2aGgHipAvUwD9uEq7eB+9h_4A8-WwYMg_YQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNdvK8OiF_S2aGgHipAvUwD9uEq7eB+9h_4A8-WwYMg_YQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.796, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.628, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UDV7p-0000y7-NW 0e4799e171a212d0d9389057fdc67c70
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Giving the Framing Layer a real name
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130307071954.GA18562@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16982
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:15:30AM -0800, Roberto Peon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Martin Thomson
> <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
> > On 27 February 2013 10:51, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Then you can't do websockets, etc or whatever other protocol (maybe
> > video?,
> > > who knows) the web platform decides to do in the future on the same
> > > socket/session.
> >
> > Not true.  Write another RFC that says how you can share the
> > connection with websockets.  That might have to change some of the
> > rules, loosen some of the constraints, add some features.
> >
> 
> We have enough to do here without worrying about it, but there you go.
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zUEFzz7NCls3Yms8hXxY4wGXJ3EEvoZc3GihrqPQcM0/edit

Did not see this one, it goes exactly in the direction I proposed for
having SPDY being the framing layer and HTTP the semantics layer :-)

Willy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email