Re: Giving the Framing Layer a real name

[James M Snell <[e-mail]>]

My vote is on: HFL4CAHMAAEWMSFTCA ..

Which, of course, is short for... HTTP Framing Layer for Carrying
Around HTTP Messages And Anything Else We May See Fit To Carry Around

Seems like a perfectly good color for the bike shed, in my humble opinion.

- James

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On 28/02/2013, at 9:06 AM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 27 February 2013 13:59, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> 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/
>
>
>
>