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

Peter Saint-Andre <> Mon, 13 February 2012 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EC6221F864B for <>; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:45:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.235
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.236, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EfZ++5JCD8I7 for <>; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:45:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AEA621F8646 for <>; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:45:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squire.local (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5BB2C4005B; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:56:23 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:45:35 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "t.petch" <>
References: <> <><><> <><> <> <> <009101cce0c0$23d36160$>
In-Reply-To: <009101cce0c0$23d36160$>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5
OpenPGP: url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:, apps-discuss <>, Paul Hoffman <>
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: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:45:38 -0000

On 2/1/12 2:01 AM, t.petch wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave CROCKER" <>
> To: "Peter Saint-Andre" <>
> Cc: "Paul Hoffman" <>rg>; <>
> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 8:48 PM
>> On 1/27/2012 10:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>>       The specification only cover parameter names, not numbers.
>>>>  Brevity is good.
>> Usually.
> As long as it is right.  My number parameters have text names; my textual
> parameters have text names.  I think that 'the specification only cover textual
> parameter, not numeric one'.
> Aliter,
> 'Note that this document only discusses parameters expressed in text; it does
> not discuss parameters that are expressed with numbers.'
> modifying Paul's original proposal slightly.
> Arguably, the first sentence of the Introduction has the same problem with its
> reference to 'named parameters' as opposed to 'parameters expressed in text'.
> But like Paul, I think that that is worth explicitly stating in this I-D,
> because when I get to Appendix B, it says
> ' [BCP82] is entitled "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
>        Considered Useful" and therefore implies that the "X-" prefix is
>        also useful for experimental parameters.  '
> Well, if this is about textual parameters, then BCP82 is irrelevant, its
> title clearly states its scope and reading and re-reading it, I see nothing in
> it
> about text or characters, every reference is to number(s) and so I see
> nothing that has implications for X-.  Reading Appendix B might well muddy the
> waters as to the scope of this I-D which is why I would like that sentence
> above added.

In our working copy I have:

"Note that this document covers only parameters with textual names, not
parameters that are expressed as numbers."

I've also clarified the matter a bit in the abstract and the introduction:

"[T]his document deprecates the "X-" convention for textual parameters
in application protocols."

"Many application protocols use parameters with textual names to
identify data..."


Shall I submit -03 so that the text is easier to track?


Peter Saint-Andre