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@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 Looks good to me. Scott K _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf