Re: Giving the Framing Layer a real name

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

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?