On 3/6/12 4:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Hey Peter,
Howdy. :)
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 3:32 PM
To: Randall Gellens
Cc: Mark Nottingham; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating
Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current
Practice
However, note the existence of things like the "x-gzip" and "gzip"
content codings in HTTP, which RFC 2068 says are equivalent. An
implementation that programmatically discriminated between "standard"
and "non-standard" parameters based solely on the parameter names might
automatically reject entities for which a content-coding of "x-gzip" is
specified, but automatically accept entities for which a content-coding
of "gzip" is specified. IMHO that's just wrong, and MUST NOT is
appropriate.
So should this document note that it "Updates 2068"?
I don't think so, because "x-gzip" and "gzip" were in fact equivalent
(as far as I can see), so treating them as equivalent seems just fine.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf