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&quot;X-&quot; 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