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

Peter Saint-Andre <> Fri, 27 January 2012 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5033D21F85C5 for <>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:34:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.608
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zYsQINEF53NL for <>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:34:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E87C21F8526 for <>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:34:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA62040058; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:44:27 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:34:34 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Hoffman <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5
OpenPGP: url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>
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: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:34:37 -0000

On 1/27/12 11:13 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> After discussing this a bit more with Pete Resnick off-line, we found
> a place where I missed a major assumption: this draft is only about
> parameter names, not numbers. Pete believes that this changes things
> hugely, but I am less sure. Regardless, we agreed it needs to be
> clarified.

That's been implicit in the document, but I agree that we need to make
it explicit.

> Proposed text to be added after the second paragraph of Section 1:
> Note that this document only discusses parameters with text names; it
> does not discuss parameters that are expressed with numbers. The
> difference between these two is that text names of parameters (for
> example, "hash-type" and "x-hash-type") tend to appear in
> administrative and user interfaces much more often than numbers that
> identify parameters (for example, 7 or 0xa007). The misuse of
> parameters with text names and with numbers are similar; developers
> will try to get experimental parameters standardized without changing
> the parameter value, developers mis-use unassigned values without
> going through the defined registration procedure, and so on. However,
> the more likely exposure to administrators and users limits the focus
> of this document only to named parameters.

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.


Peter Saint-Andre