On 07/03/2012, at 1:34 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:

> At 1:02 PM +1100 3/7/12, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> On 07/03/2012, at 10:32 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3/6/12 4:19 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>>> At 3:30 PM -0700 3/6/12, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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).
>>>> 
>>>> I like this wording, especially because it more clearly gets at the
>>>> heart of the document, which is to not discriminate based only on the
>>>> name prefix.
>>>> 
>>>> One question, though: should this be "SHOULD NOT" rather than "MUST
>>>> NOT"?   The interoperability doesn't depend on implementations
>>>> refraining from doing so, rather, we consider it more problematic to do
>>>> so than not, so we are making a strong recommendation to not to so.
>>>> Hence, "SHOULD NOT".
>>> 
>>> Hi Randall,
>>> 
>>> My co-author Mark Nottingham feels even more strongly about this issue
>>> than I do, so I will let him comment.
>> 
>> To me, the target of that language is software that generically treats 
>> protocol elements beginning with "x-" in a fundamentally different way, 
>> without knowledge of its semantics. That is broken, causes real harm, and I 
>> have seen it deployed.
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> The point of the draft is to say that it's a bad idea to do this or to try 
> and have a system where this is expected.  The draft does a good job at 
> saying this.  I just think a "MUST NOT" isn't warranted here; I think a 
> "SHOULD NOT" is justified per RFC 2119.  I think a "SHOULD NOT" makes the 
> point: Doing it makes bad things happen.


I have to disagree; MUST NOT *is* justified. Deploying systems like this causes 
real interoperability problems, which is in scope for a MUST NOT.



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



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Reply via email to