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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 14 December 2011 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 AAA581F0C4B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:40:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 IYTgr+s43RKA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:40:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98A91F0C47 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:40:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (unknown [101.169.50.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58CED22E256; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:39:58 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <4EE930F5.10307@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:40:01 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6424139D-7CD0-4F57-9BDF-B296C1FC2B0D@mnot.net>
References: <4EE2430E.4080501@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20111209093855.0aa4fed0@resistor.net> <4EE25B9E.2010206@stpeter.im> <4EE930F5.10307@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: 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, 14 Dec 2011 23:40:07 -0000

To add to that -- I know of one implementation that does this today (treats HTTP headers that start with X- fundamentally differently), and I need this in there to bash them over the head. Doing so is very broken.

Cheers,


On 15/12/2011, at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> 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
> disconnect.
> 
> 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
> 
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/