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

"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Wed, 01 February 2012 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.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 BF88121F8633 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 02:02:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.629
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.629 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, BAYES_20=-0.74]
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 7HR1pSt9Yq-D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 02:02:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2bthomr10.btconnect.com [213.123.20.128]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA5A21F862A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 02:02:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host86-163-138-100.range86-163.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([86.163.138.100]) by c2bthomr10.btconnect.com with SMTP id GDH71317; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:01:35 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <009101cce0c0$23d36160$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <4EE2430E.4080501@isode.com> <4F1F1A72.1090302@isode.com><6068EE9E-D120-4CE9-8096-C296C169C7DE@vpnc.org><4F22EE3A.9010801@stpeter.im> <4F22EF8B.9000509@dcrocker.net><4F22EFCF.3050607@stpeter.im> <4F22F08D.4060902@stpeter.im> <4F22FF9F.5040304@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:01:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.4F290D7D.00AF, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.1.30.73017:17:7.944, ip=86.163.138.100, rules=__HAS_MSGID, __OUTLOOK_MSGID_1, __SANE_MSGID, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, __MULTIPLE_RCPTS_CC_X2, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, CT_TP_8859_1, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_WWW, __URI_NO_PATH, __CP_NOT_1, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_1600_1699, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, MULTIPLE_RCPTS, RDNS_SUSP, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr10.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0204.4F290D80.00A8, ss=1, re=0.000, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, apps-discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.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: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:02:06 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave CROCKER" <dhc@dcrocker.net>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Cc: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>rg>; <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 8:48 PM
> On 1/27/2012 10:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >>       The specification only cover parameter names, not numbers.
> >>  Brevity is good.
> Usually.

As long as it is right.  My number parameters have text names; my textual
parameters have text names.  I think that 'the specification only cover textual
parameter, not numeric one'.

Aliter,
'Note that this document only discusses parameters expressed in text; it does
not discuss parameters that are expressed with numbers.'
modifying Paul's original proposal slightly.

Arguably, the first sentence of the Introduction has the same problem with its
reference to 'named parameters' as opposed to 'parameters expressed in text'.

But like Paul, I think that that is worth explicitly stating in this I-D,
because when I get to Appendix B, it says
' [BCP82] is entitled "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
       Considered Useful" and therefore implies that the "X-" prefix is
       also useful for experimental parameters.  '
Well, if this is about textual parameters, then BCP82 is irrelevant, its
title clearly states its scope and reading and re-reading it, I see nothing in
it
about text or characters, every reference is to number(s) and so I see
nothing that has implications for X-.  Reading Appendix B might well muddy the
waters as to the scope of this I-D which is why I would like that sentence
above added.

Tom Petch
> d/