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