IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 07 July 2011 01:43 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 57EE121F8A5B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 18:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.312
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.712, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ODbvdi9Ku+Oe for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 18:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D0721F8A58 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 18:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squire.local (unknown [216.17.179.111]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6481E40F84; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 19:43:54 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4E150F53.5090100@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 19:43:47 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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> <4E14D8A0.8090409@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E14D8A0.8090409@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
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, 07 Jul 2011 01:43:50 -0000

On 7/6/11 3:50 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Got it. Tweaked in my working copy to:

   2.  Specification authors SHOULD provide unlimited registries with
       well-defined registration procedures and SHOULD mandate
       registration of all parameters, independent of the form of the
       parameter names.

Peter

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email