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

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 27 January 2012 19:02 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 2663321F8512 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:02:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 qvvsRnZAvK8a for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F16B21F850F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-124-148-117.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.148.117]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0RJ2g0P013385 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:02:48 -0800
Message-ID: <4F22F4CD.5020508@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:02:37 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@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> <3D2033EA-73C5-432B-BAFB-D2B796B04582@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <3D2033EA-73C5-432B-BAFB-D2B796B04582@vpnc.org>
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]); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:02:48 -0800 (PST)
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
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: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:02:49 -0000

On 1/27/2012 10:47 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> The specification only cover parameter names, not numbers.
>>
>> Brevity is good.
>
> ...except when it excludes the reasoning for the text.

This appears to be a different concern than the one you've offered text for.
What 'reasoning' is missing and what text do you suggest for remedying it?


> 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.

Whereas I believe this document has nothing at all to do with "abuse" or
"misuse" and doesn't hint or pretend otherwise.

It has to do with a well-intentioned convention that has been used reasonably
but has proved counter-productive.


> I really think you are undershooting here.

And since I think your are significantly overshooting, do we cancel each other out?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net