On 3/1/12 5:14 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2012-03-15. Exceptionally, comments >> may be >>>> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx 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. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf