Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01.txt

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 20 October 2011 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC151F0C43 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.718
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 D6JPl0iy+iZ9 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F03D1F0C34 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-202.cisco.com (unknown [64.101.72.202]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B74541E49; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:10:53 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4EA0A94C.9030003@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:05:48 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
References: <20111018203341.3470.52152.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E9DE481.4090607@stpeter.im> <CAHhFybo0q3U8bxBN5b8W4nwE4GceKFa9E-809Om=+aeVwMH2Jg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHhFybo0q3U8bxBN5b8W4nwE4GceKFa9E-809Om=+aeVwMH2Jg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:05:55 -0000

On 10/19/11 7:20 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> On 18 October 2011 22:41, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-01
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> How about adding RFC 4395 as another example for an IANA registry
> permitting provisional registrations?  And maybe the "provisional"
> feature should get a SHOULD or MAY in section 3, not only a note
> in appendix B.

Hi Frank, how is this? (BTW I also changed the order slightly.)

###

4.  Recommendations for Protocol Designers

   Designers of new application protocols that allow extensions using
   parameters:

   1.  SHOULD establish registries with potentially unlimited value-
       spaces, if appropriate including both permanent and provisional
       registries.

   2.  SHOULD define simple, clear registration procedures.

   3.  SHOULD mandate registration of all non-private parameters,
       independent of the form of the parameter names.

   4.  SHOULD identify a convention to allow local or implementation-
       specific extensions, and reserve delimeters for such uses as
       needed.

   5.  SHOULD NOT prohibit parameters with the "X-" prefix from being
       registered with the IANA.

   6.  MUST NOT assume that a parameter with an "X-" prefix is non-
       standard.

   7.  MUST NOT assume that a parameter without an "X-" prefix is
       standard.

###