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

Paul Hoffman <> Fri, 27 January 2012 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B24A21F863F for <>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:13:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.552
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pNd67ZEPP-kJ for <>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17AE021F864E for <>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0RIDW1u053822 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:13:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Paul Hoffman <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:13:32 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Alexey Melnikov <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: "" <>
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: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:13:35 -0000

After discussing this a bit more with Pete Resnick off-line, we found a place where I missed a major assumption: this draft is only about parameter names, not numbers. Pete believes that this changes things hugely, but I am less sure. Regardless, we agreed it needs to be clarified.

Proposed text to be added after the second paragraph of Section 1:

Note that this document only discusses parameters with text names; it does not discuss parameters that are expressed with numbers. The difference between these two is that text names of parameters (for example, "hash-type" and "x-hash-type") tend to appear in administrative and user interfaces much more often than numbers that identify parameters (for example, 7 or 0xa007). The misuse of parameters with text names and with numbers are similar; developers will try to get experimental parameters standardized without changing the parameter value, developers mis-use unassigned values without going through the defined registration procedure, and so on. However, the more likely exposure to administrators and users limits the focus of this document only to named parameters.

--Paul Hoffman