ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice

2012-03-06 16:32:28
On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 03:30:44 PM Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 3/6/12 3:24 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 03:19:41 PM Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 3/1/12 5:14 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
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.

The concept behind this text was always about how one uses names, or
more precisely how code implementations treat them, because the
authors
are of the opinion that it's a bad idea for implementations to
hardcode
their handling of parameter based solely on the existence of the
string
'x-' at the start of the parameter name. I think the revised text I
provided captures this more clearly.

Yes.  Thanks for clarifying.

Thanks for requesting clarification.

In my working copy I've changed that paragraph to:

   Implementations of application protocols MUST NOT programatically
   discriminate between "standard" and "non-standard" parameters based
   solely on the names of such parameters (i.e., based solely on
   whether the name begins with 'x-' or a similar string of characters).

Peter

Looks good to me.

Scott K
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>