Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im> wrote:
On 3/1/12 12:00 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:47:50 AM The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working
Group
WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
- 'Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols'
<draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> as a Best Current Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2012-03-15. Exceptionally,
comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
Historically, designers and implementers of application protocols
have often distinguished between "standard" and "non-standard"
parameters by prefixing the latter with the string "X-" or
similar
constructions. In practice, this convention causes more problems
than it solves. Therefore, this document deprecates the "X-"
convention for textual parameters in application protocols.
...
2. Recommendations for Implementers of Application Protocols
Implementers of application protocols MUST NOT treat the general
categories of "standard" and "non-standard" parameters in
programatically different ways within their applications.
Shouldn't this restrict itself to the naming of parameters? Perhaps:
2. Recommendations for Implementers of Application Protocols
Implementers of application protocols MUST NOT treat the general
naming of parameters in programmatically different ways within
their applications depending on if they are "standard" or
"non-standard".
How about this?
Implementations of application protocols MUST NOT programatically
discriminate between "standard" and "non-standard" parameters based
solely on the names of such parameters.
I'm not quite sure.
Is this supposed to be about how one selects names or how one uses them. I'd
thought it meant the former, but your revised text sounds like the latter to me.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf