IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 06 July 2011 21:50 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 838AC21F8BE2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3NN877oFK1mz for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1728021F8BE1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.156] (adsl-67-124-149-98.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.149.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p66LoRJO013420 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:50:32 -0700
Message-ID: <4E14D8A0.8090409@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:50:24 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <4E08CDCB.70902@stpeter.im> <4E13DC15.2080302@stpeter.im> <4E14A334.60500@dcrocker.net> <4E14BFFC.5070504@stpeter.im> <4E14CB64.2090403@dcrocker.net> <4E14CD42.2010800@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4E14CD42.2010800@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]); Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited
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: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:50:33 -0000

On 7/6/2011 2:01 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>    Authors of application protocol specifications SHOULD provide
>> extensible registries for all parameters and SHOULD mandate use of the
>> registries, for all values of the parameters, independent of the form of
>> the parameter names.
>
> The second SHOULD strikes me as somewhat controversial. :)

Yup.  But I figured, in for a penny...


> The first SHOULD is fine by me, although I'm not sure what an extensible
> registry is -- did you mean "both permanent and provisional registries"?

That was a tad cryptic, wasn't it.

To be extensible, I meant that it needs to be listed with IANA, with procedures 
for making additions.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email