Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-00.txt
Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Sun, 18 September 2011 04:25 UTC
Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
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 BE95321F8531 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.491
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 KLTkionigqqr for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBAA821F8520 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxd18 with SMTP id 18so3164340fxd.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AB4OwPy5Y7igHnDpmsgvmJK4g0cselZx+gTV/aR5ZDE=; b=TPh3WVImYKjnbaYpsrq9/mxzrU8Ml6pOiATVTDhNnR0T2074aBchRkEh0pdmKExI70 iCRyaKb8F9aauy974YiwPHwmY9Ps3JsVI/qVc1JoY7c43BjsDWjcFSdVwcAxHKqHObO1 xwDDmbBmwFYuHZDsYJNW21CeOcpvyWufKgnsg=
Received: by 10.223.39.25 with SMTP id d25mr2353099fae.131.1316320054525; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t19sm16785130faj.23.2011.09.17.21.27.32 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E757356.4010307@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:28:06 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <20110913170705.8169.5544.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110913170705.8169.5544.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-00.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: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 04:25:16 -0000
13.09.2011 20:07, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Deprecating Use of the"X-" Prefix in Application Protocols > Author(s) : Peter Saint-Andre > D. Crocker > Mark Nottingham > Filename : draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-00.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2011-09-13 Some comments: 1. Throughout the document: s/HTTP headers/HTTP header fields/. 2. Bullet 3 in Section 4 (and Bullet 1 in Appendix B): > Especially if the parameter > is intended to have meaning to implementers, the name could be a > URI (e.g.,"http://example.com/foo") I don't think this may be appropriate in most of current application-layer protocols (eg. header fields, URI scheme names, URN namespaces, FTP/SMTP/POP commands etc.). 3. Bullet 4 in Section 4: > 4. SHOULD generate meaningless names for parameters that will not > become standardized or widely used (e.g., because an extension is > completely private or purely speculative). I believe that any parameter, even used in presence of bilateral agreement between parties should be named to give enough information about its contents. So I propose to remove this recommendation. 4. Bullet 1 in Section 5: > 1. SHOULD provide unlimited registries with well-defined > registration procedures. Maybe "unlimited registry space" or "registries of unlimited size" here? 5. Appendix A, X*** FTP commands, I think you could also provide some information on further destiny of the commands as an illustration of what you claim in Appendix B: X*** were replaced by non-X *** commands in RFC 959, and caused interoperability problems requiring implementations to support both variant (what they continue to do even now, BTW). Thanks, Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-xda… internet-drafts
- Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg… Frank Ellermann
- Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg… Mykyta Yevstifeyev