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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 15 December 2011 01:38 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 2B5EA1F0C64 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:38:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.671
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.072, 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 hR2-kNTc5baZ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5937A1F0C47 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from normz.cisco.com (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CBCFC423AD; Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:45:28 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4EE94F6C.2000803@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:37:48 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
References: <4EE2430E.4080501@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20111209093855.0aa4fed0@resistor.net> <4EE25B9E.2010206@stpeter.im> <4EE930F5.10307@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20111214162054.062bda60@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111214162054.062bda60@resistor.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 01:38:04 -0000

On 12/14/11 5:23 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> At 15:27 14-12-2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> The "most" in "deprecates the "X-" convention for most application"
> (Section 1) could be dropped.  It would then match the intent.

Yes, that's a possibility, too.

I hesitate to be too strict, because there *might* be application
protocols that have limited registries. But those are covered by other
escape clauses, so I think it would be fine to remove "most".

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/