Hi.
I realize I'm probably in the minority on this, but I think the
document overstates its case a bit and, perhaps recognizing the
actual complexity of the situation, even may contradict itself a
bit. For example, I note that it says:
(Section 1) Therefore this document deprecates the
On 3/1/12 5:14 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im 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
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 stpe...@stpeter.im 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
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 stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 3/1/12 12:00 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:47:50 AM The IESG wrote:
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 stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 3/1/12 12:00 PM, Scott
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.,
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
Hey Peter,
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter
Saint-Andre
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 3:32 PM
To: Randall Gellens
Cc: Mark Nottingham; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt (Deprecating
On 3/6/12 4:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Hey Peter,
Howdy. :)
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 3:32 PM
To: Randall Gellens
Cc: Mark Nottingham; ietf@ietf.org
Subject:
At 4:32 PM -0700 3/6/12, 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
it would be a very broken implementation, but not something
that harmed the Internet or even anyone else whose applications worked
properly. At most it would harm its own user, who I assume would quickly
dump it.
I don't think harm to the Internet is the bar for MUST. If your
implementation
At 7:53 PM -0500 3/6/12, Barry Leiba wrote:
it would be a very broken implementation, but not something
that harmed the Internet or even anyone else whose applications worked
properly. At most it would harm its own user, who I assume would quickly
dump it.
I don't think harm to the
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
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
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
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.
clue bat please? is there any general semantic to
On 07/03/2012, at 1:52 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
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.
clue
But it does clue one in immediately to the fact that the parameter is
non-standard.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mark Nottingham
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:11 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: Randall Gellens;
Yes, but (as the draft tries to explain) putting this kind of metadata in a
name is prone to issues, because it can change -- i.e., when a header (or other
protocol element) becomes standard.
On 07/03/2012, at 4:54 PM, Paul E. Jones wrote:
But it does clue one in immediately to the fact
I suppose one could argue that X- should never be on the Public Internet,
anyway. But they are. If we remove X-, then what will happen is developers
will use names that don't have X-. Will that make things better? No. I'd
argue it will make it worse.
Non-standard extensions do present
At 1:19 AM -0500 3/7/12, Paul E. Jones wrote:
I suppose one could argue that X- should never be on the Public Internet,
anyway. But they are. If we remove X-, then what will happen is developers
will use names that don't have X-. Will that make things better? No. I'd
argue it will make
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
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'
Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im 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
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
