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

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 27 January 2012 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 539E021F85FB for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:40:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 F7ED+puYsNJo for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:40:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F9F21F85F0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:40:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-124-148-117.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.148.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0RIeHxB012841 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:40:22 -0800
Message-ID: <4F22EF8B.9000509@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:40:11 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 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>
In-Reply-To: <4F22EE3A.9010801@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:40:23 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <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
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:40:24 -0000

On 1/27/2012 10:34 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Proposed text is always appreciated.:)
>
> It's not clear to me what function the third sentence serves; we don't
> talk elsewhere about the misuse of parameters. With some editing, I suggest:
>
> Because textual names of parameters (e.g., "hash-type" and
> "x-hash-type") tend to appear in administrative and user interfaces much
> more often than numbers that identify parameters (e.g., 7 or 0xa007),
> this document discusses only parameters with textual names, not
> parameters that are expressed with numbers.


In fact I'm unclear about what problem the added text solves.  It seems to focus 
on issues that are out of scope for the draft.

At best, an aid to the reader to understand that scope seems sufficient, along 
the lines of Paul's prefatory sentence:

      The specification only cover parameter names, not numbers.

d/


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net