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@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. 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 -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf