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@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. Yes. Thanks for clarifying. Scott K _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf