Subject: [apps-discuss] WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:19:10 +0000

Dear WG participant,
I would like to initiate WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt. Due to 
holiday season the WGLC is going to be a long one and will end on 
January 6th. Please send any comments directly to the apps-discuss 
mailing list, or directly to editors of the draft and myself.
Please send an email even if you reviewed the document and found no 
issues with it.

Thank you,
Alexey, as an APPSAWG co-chair.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:54:43 -0800

At 09:19 09-12-2011, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>I would like to initiate WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt. 
>Due to holiday season the WGLC is going to be a long one and will 
>end on January 6th. Please send any comments

Please consider the comments below as nits.

In Section 1:

   "Therefore this document deprecates the "X-" convention for most
    application protocols and makes specific recommendations about
    how to proceed in a world without the distinction between
    standard and non-standard parameters."

In Section 2, there is a "MUST NOT" for implementers of application 
protocols.  The "most" (see quoted text) is not taken into 
consideration.  The authors could get away with a "SHOULD" instead of a "MUST".

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:03:58 -0700

On 12/9/11 11:54 AM, SM wrote:
>> I would like to initiate WGLC on draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-02.txt. Due
>> to holiday season the WGLC is going to be a long one and will end on
>> January 6th. Please send any comments
> 

Good point. Thanks for the review!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:27:49 -0700

> Good point. Thanks for the review!

Aha, in looking at how to change the text I realize there might be a
disconnect.

Section 2 states:

   Implementers of application protocols MUST NOT treat the general
   categories of "standard" and "non-standard" parameters in
   programatically different ways within their applications.

The intent of that text is to say that it's not acceptable in your code
to search for the characters "x" and "-" at the beginning of every HTTP
header (or whatever) and take some programatically different action
based on the mere fact that some parameters start with those two
characters whereas others don't. The handling of any given parameter
needs to be based on the semantics of the parameter, not the mere
presence of "x" and "-" at the start of the name.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:40:01 +1100

To add to that -- I know of one implementation that does this today (treats HTTP headers that start with X- fundamentally differently), and I need this in there to bash them over the head. Doing so is very broken.

Cheers,

On 15/12/2011, at 10:27 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:23:31 -0800

Hi Peter,
>presence of "x" and "-" at the start of the name.

The "most" in "deprecates the "X-" convention for most application" 
(Section 1) could be dropped.  It would then match the intent.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:37:48 -0700

> (Section 1) could be dropped.  It would then match the intent.

Yes, that's a possibility, too.

I hesitate to be too strict, because there *might* be application
protocols that have limited registries. But those are covered by other
escape clauses, so I think it would be fine to remove "most".

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/