Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt

Peter Saint-Andre <> Wed, 14 December 2011 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1061D21F8AFD for <>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:27:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.709
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.709 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.110, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YPIIZWbOmb1a for <>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:27:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D22A21F8AF5 for <>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:27:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 67CCA4234D; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:35:29 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:27:49 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4
OpenPGP: url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:27:52 -0000

On 12/9/11 12:03 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 12/9/11 11:54 AM, SM wrote:
>> At 09:19 09-12-2011, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>> I would like to initiate WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt. Due
>>> to holiday season the WGLC is going to be a long one and will end on
>>> January 6th. Please send any comments
>> Please consider the comments below as nits.
>> In Section 1:
>>   "Therefore this document deprecates the "X-" convention for most
>>    application protocols and makes specific recommendations about
>>    how to proceed in a world without the distinction between
>>    standard and non-standard parameters."
>> In Section 2, there is a "MUST NOT" for implementers of application
>> protocols.  The "most" (see quoted text) is not taken into
>> consideration.  The authors could get away with a "SHOULD" instead of a
>> "MUST".
> Good point. Thanks for the review!

Aha, in looking at how to change the text I realize there might be a

Section 2 states:

   Implementers of application protocols MUST NOT treat the general
   categories of "standard" and "non-standard" parameters in
   programatically different ways within their applications.

The intent of that text is to say that it's not acceptable in your code
to search for the characters "x" and "-" at the beginning of every HTTP
header (or whatever) and take some programatically different action
based on the mere fact that some parameters start with those two
characters whereas others don't. The handling of any given parameter
needs to be based on the semantics of the parameter, not the mere
presence of "x" and "-" at the start of the name.


Peter Saint-Andre