Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited

Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Thu, 30 June 2011 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DF321F87F1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 04:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.234
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.234 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.366, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f3DA0YXZ+aOU for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 04:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [74.124.194.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AAD721F87EF for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 04:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=standardstrack.com; h=Received:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir; b=NMqctOExAPMkAtTQu2casxNYe3+EwijRcaC/p/ei+FYXvgLXG5iXdWJ5ZTVsOmmSinEpq+M7ThHOimX/UPUPWl3SX6egOZHw58SHGBJREiz5WPa5mGOeLAjrINvO6uY7;
Received: from ip68-100-199-8.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.199.8] helo=[192.168.15.126]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1QcFKj-0002t0-Ho; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 04:22:57 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-68-413294549; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikOQt4k8YDv5z43SYuRcq5rzueGKw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:22:56 -0400
Message-Id: <C54B11FA-BCD2-4D60-9E46-851D6780D5DE@standardstrack.com>
References: <4E08CDCB.70902@stpeter.im> <BANLkTikOQt4k8YDv5z43SYuRcq5rzueGKw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Cc: General application-layer protocols discussion of <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] "X-" revisited
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:23:02 -0000

The difference between protocol parameters and domain names is domain names are meant for human consumption, while protocol parameters are arbitrary strings of ASCII or UTF-8 text. A protocol might use the string "kritisch" to mean "something critical." Great -- people building user interfaces will read the RFC, know that parameter is "kritisch" and will display "critical," "crucial," "krytyczny," or whatever is appropriate for the user. For that matter, one could really use the string "foobar" to mean "something criticial" or even the number 42. The protocol will work just fine, and users (who do NOT read what is on the wire) can have a great experience.

The point is *this* name space is huge and fungible, whereas the DNS is large and NOT fungible.

On Jun 29, 2011, at 6:05 PM, Dirk Pranke wrote:

> Your draft has:
> 
>>  In some situations, segregating the name space of parameters used in
>>  a given application protocol can be justified:
>>  ...
>>  2.  When parameter names might have significant meaning.  This case
>>      is rare, since implementers can almost always find a synonym
>>      (e.g., "urgency" instead of "priority") or simply invent a new
>>      name.
> 
> It seems to me that a primary benefit of the "X-" convention is that
> it makes unprefixed parameter names less socially acceptable; i.e.,
> there's a pretty clear rule of thumb that if the name isn't X-
> prefixed, it probably has seen a pass through a committee and hence it
> stands at least a chance of having the same meaning in multiple
> implementations.
> 
> I am concerned that if you abandon the X- practice, you will lose this
> benefit and finding untainted, available parameter names might become
> harder. Sure, you can often find a synonym, but it is not usually as
> good as the original choice. I would hate to see things move to a
> namespace land-grab like we have seen in DNS.
> 
> Has this been raised as an issue before?
> 
> -- Dirk
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
>> Based on comments received to date, I've published a heavily-revised
>> version of the "X-" proposal:
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-saintandre-xdash-00.txt
>> 
>> Further feedback is welcome!
>> 
>> Peter
>> 
>> --
>> Peter Saint-Andre
>> https://stpeter.im/
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss