Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Multiple kinds of payload in HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 conflict with payload terminology from core and RFC7230 #654

Closed
royfielding opened this issue Jan 6, 2021 · 5 comments · Fixed by #655
Closed

Multiple kinds of payload in HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 conflict with payload terminology from core and RFC7230 #654

royfielding opened this issue Jan 6, 2021 · 5 comments · Fixed by #655
Assignees
@royfielding
Labels
editorial has-proposal semantics

Comments

@royfielding
Copy link
Member

Taking another look at the problems surrounding the term "payload", I went to see what was being used in h2 (RFC7540) and HTTP/3. Unfortunately, they use both "payload body" (h2, 7230) / "payload data" (h3, http-core) and also "frame payload" (h2, h3).

So, at various times, DATA payload != payload data, but a DATA payload might contain the payload data if it happens to be the only DATA frame.

Just shoot me.
@royfielding
Copy link
Member Author

Maybe we should just go back to calling it the "request body" or "response body"?

@royfielding
Copy link
Member Author

Note that this is time-sensitive for h3 and @MikeBishop and would slightly impact h2 and @martinthomson.

@royfielding royfielding mentioned this issue Jan 6, 2021
Closed
@royfielding
Copy link
Member Author

Or perhaps call the core payload concept "content" and use "payload" for messaging/frames.

@royfielding royfielding mentioned this issue Jan 7, 2021
Merged
@royfielding royfielding self-assigned this Jan 7, 2021
@reschke
Copy link
Contributor

reschke commented Jan 7, 2021

Note that making this change will require changes in draft-ietf-quic-http.

@royfielding
Copy link
Member Author

Yes, I'd like to decide this editorial change ASAP, but we can also prepare an editorial PR for HTTP/3 in parallel for @MikeBishop. That would be a much smaller change since most usage of payload in that document refer to frame payloads.

@royfielding royfielding mentioned this issue Jan 7, 2021
Merged
@martinthomson martinthomson mentioned this issue Jan 8, 2021
Closed
@LPardue LPardue mentioned this issue Jan 8, 2021
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@royfielding royfielding

Labels
editorial has-proposal semantics
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Use the term content instead of payload httpwg/http-core
2 participants
@reschke @royfielding