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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 27 January 2012 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 9E84821F84AA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:47:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, 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 sfUgzKeL-xxT for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:47:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2453321F84A3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:47:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.103] (50-0-66-4.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.0.66.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0RIlR0S068323 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:47:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F22EFCF.3050607@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:47:27 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3D2033EA-73C5-432B-BAFB-D2B796B04582@vpnc.org>
References: <4EE2430E.4080501@isode.com> <4F1F1A72.1090302@isode.com> <6068EE9E-D120-4CE9-8096-C296C169C7DE@vpnc.org> <4F22EE3A.9010801@stpeter.im> <4F22EF8B.9000509@dcrocker.net> <4F22EFCF.3050607@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <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: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:47:30 -0000

On Jan 27, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 1/27/12 11:40 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/27/2012 10:34 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> In fact I'm unclear about what problem the added text solves.  It seems
>> to focus on issues that are out of scope for the draft.
>> 
>> At best, an aid to the reader to understand that scope seems sufficient,
>> along the lines of Paul's prefatory sentence:
>> 
>>     The specification only cover parameter names, not numbers.
> 
> Brevity is good.


...except when it excludes the reasoning for the text.

As you say before, the document doesn't directly address the misuse of parameters, although it hints at it. If you think only hinting is useful (I don't), then not even hinting at why the document only covers names is probably fine.

I really think you are undershooting here.

--Paul Hoffman