Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-appswg-xdash-03

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

Presenting my still purple face, and this time intentionally replying to 
all...

On 3/10/12 9:41 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> for the life of me, I can't figure out what John's substantive concern 
> is with the document being considered.

As I said before, I think making the "status vs. type" distinction is 
worth doing, though apparently even I was unable to do it the first shot 
to make it clear to John, though apparently I did on the second 
go-round. An attempt at text:

To the first paragraph of the intro:

    Many application protocols use parameters with textual names to
    identify data (media types, header fields in Internet mail messages
    and HTTP requests, vCard parameters and properties, etc.).
    Historically, designers and implementers of application protocols
    have often distinguished between "standard" and "non-standard"
    parameters by prefixing the latter with the string "X-" or similar
    constructions (e.g., "x."), where the "X" is commonly understood to
    stand for "eXperimental" or "eXtension".

Add: "That is, instead of just identifying the data, the name also 
embedded the status of the name as "non-standard" into the name itself."

Does that help? Do we need more elsewhere in the intro.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]